Theonomy - Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:25 PM
A friend of mine showed me a video of Theonomy and said that is is accurate he does not see a problem with it.
Thoughts?
Tom
Thoughts?
Tom
Re: Theonomy - Sat Sep 03, 2022 7:48 PM
Video doesn't work.
Re: Theonomy - Sun Sep 04, 2022 4:43 PM
The link works for me.
Try forwarding it a bit.
They don’t get into the subject until a bit later.
Tom
Try forwarding it a bit.
They don’t get into the subject until a bit later.
Tom
Re: Theonomy - Sun Sep 04, 2022 6:16 PM
Okay, working now.
1. Disagree with one of their foundational axioms: "we are to be winning the nations". Sorry, I don't find that in Scripture. What I find is to evangelize the nations, i.e., preach the Gospel for the purpose of calling the elect to repentance and faith who make up the 'remnant' who are of God's chosen race.
2. Disagree with their concept of "victory". Christ IS victorious due to his active and passive obedience which secured the salvation of those whom the Father gave to Him from all eternity. They are a remnant of all mankind and who will occupy the New Earth at the consummation. NOW is the kingdom of God and NOW is Christ the Ruler of the kingdom and the world. I find no "Christianization" of the world in Scripture.
3. Disagree with their view that the nations of this world must and will submit to God's law before the end of this age. ALL will be held accountable for their rebellion and disobedience to the law of God. But I do not find a worldly 'theonomy' other than OT Israel which is gone. The New Heaven and New Earth is the future and only theonomy. I cannot find any hint of the Church ruling the world in Scripture.
Lots more, but why bother?
Sam Waldron's "Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment" is one of the better apologetics against Theonomic Reconstructionism, IMO.
1. Disagree with one of their foundational axioms: "we are to be winning the nations". Sorry, I don't find that in Scripture. What I find is to evangelize the nations, i.e., preach the Gospel for the purpose of calling the elect to repentance and faith who make up the 'remnant' who are of God's chosen race.
2. Disagree with their concept of "victory". Christ IS victorious due to his active and passive obedience which secured the salvation of those whom the Father gave to Him from all eternity. They are a remnant of all mankind and who will occupy the New Earth at the consummation. NOW is the kingdom of God and NOW is Christ the Ruler of the kingdom and the world. I find no "Christianization" of the world in Scripture.
3. Disagree with their view that the nations of this world must and will submit to God's law before the end of this age. ALL will be held accountable for their rebellion and disobedience to the law of God. But I do not find a worldly 'theonomy' other than OT Israel which is gone. The New Heaven and New Earth is the future and only theonomy. I cannot find any hint of the Church ruling the world in Scripture.
Lots more, but why bother?
Sam Waldron's "Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment" is one of the better apologetics against Theonomic Reconstructionism, IMO.
Re: Theonomy - Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:27 AM
Pilgrim, this is helpful. I have some questions and comments; to hopefully flesh this out a bit more.
1. If I wanted to be real nitpicky, I would take issue with “we are to be winning the nations".
However, it is my experience that when most people of Calvinist persuasion (which they are) say something like that. They are talking about as you put it: “What I find is to evangelize the nations, i.e., preach the Gospel for the purpose of calling the elect to repentance and faith who make up the 'remnant' who are of God's chosen race.”
The reason I say that, is because this is a basic Calvinist soteriological understanding that I learned early on as I was studying Calvinism.
So, although I do not think it is wrong to correct someone about that. Knowing Calvinist soteriology, unless I am missing something. What you said is what they mean.
2. I think I can agree with you here; their concept of “victory” is probably more in line with the Postmillenialism of Rushdoony, than the Amillenialism of someone like Waldron.
I must admit, I did not pick that up as I was watching that. Perhaps that is the case with my friend, who is Amil?
3. As I read what you said; I must admit that although the more I read on the topic I understand more, I am not as yet knowledgeable enough to speak to that issue.
I noticed you mentioned Sam Waldron’s article. As you know, I recently posted that article on the Highway. Does the article mention this issue in it? If so, I must have missed it.
Can you point me where in the article I can find it?
If not, perhaps you can point me to where I can?
Tom
1. If I wanted to be real nitpicky, I would take issue with “we are to be winning the nations".
However, it is my experience that when most people of Calvinist persuasion (which they are) say something like that. They are talking about as you put it: “What I find is to evangelize the nations, i.e., preach the Gospel for the purpose of calling the elect to repentance and faith who make up the 'remnant' who are of God's chosen race.”
The reason I say that, is because this is a basic Calvinist soteriological understanding that I learned early on as I was studying Calvinism.
So, although I do not think it is wrong to correct someone about that. Knowing Calvinist soteriology, unless I am missing something. What you said is what they mean.
2. I think I can agree with you here; their concept of “victory” is probably more in line with the Postmillenialism of Rushdoony, than the Amillenialism of someone like Waldron.
I must admit, I did not pick that up as I was watching that. Perhaps that is the case with my friend, who is Amil?
3. As I read what you said; I must admit that although the more I read on the topic I understand more, I am not as yet knowledgeable enough to speak to that issue.
I noticed you mentioned Sam Waldron’s article. As you know, I recently posted that article on the Highway. Does the article mention this issue in it? If so, I must have missed it.
Can you point me where in the article I can find it?
If not, perhaps you can point me to where I can?
Tom
Re: Theonomy - Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:46 AM
1. Christians are not called to WIN anything, never mind individuals or especially nations. No nation has ever been "won for Christ"; not even Israel among within which only a small percentage (remnant) were actually truly regenerated and converted. Billy Graham used to use that terminology but I don't recall any Puritan using it knowing that it is by the power of God the the Spirit working in conjunction with the Word that a sinner is saved from destruction and becomes a disciple of Christ. But perhaps I am being deliberately nitpicky? 
2. I know of no traditional Amillennialist who believes the majority of people on earth will be saved and that Christianity will dominate all facets of life around the world. Sorry, but I don't believe in a "One World Christian Government" that follows the law of God. Such a phenomena is called the New Heaven and New Earth. The visible church will continue to be more and more heretical, apostate and worldly until Christ returns. Again, He is already victorious in that He accomplished ALL that the Father and He agreed upon in the Covenant of Peace. Establishing a Christian world is not part of that plan.
3. I don't know what "issue" you are referring to in Sam Waldron's critique of Theonomy? I simply mentioned Waldron because I think he does address the major problems and errors in the Theonomic Reconstructionist position. And there are a few articles on The Highway which I think are more than sufficient to counter those who embrace Theonomy. If you have read those already, then perhaps reading them once again would help you with your 'friend'?
2. I know of no traditional Amillennialist who believes the majority of people on earth will be saved and that Christianity will dominate all facets of life around the world. Sorry, but I don't believe in a "One World Christian Government" that follows the law of God. Such a phenomena is called the New Heaven and New Earth. The visible church will continue to be more and more heretical, apostate and worldly until Christ returns. Again, He is already victorious in that He accomplished ALL that the Father and He agreed upon in the Covenant of Peace. Establishing a Christian world is not part of that plan.
3. I don't know what "issue" you are referring to in Sam Waldron's critique of Theonomy? I simply mentioned Waldron because I think he does address the major problems and errors in the Theonomic Reconstructionist position. And there are a few articles on The Highway which I think are more than sufficient to counter those who embrace Theonomy. If you have read those already, then perhaps reading them once again would help you with your 'friend'?
Re: Theonomy - Fri Sep 09, 2022 4:34 AM
For my own sake I want to state a few things I understand from Historic Amillennialism .
Please correct me where and if my understanding is wrong.
Thanks
Doing some more study of the Historic Amil view.
Traditionally speaking, they have always stressed that the Church will always be triumphant; yet this does not mean that the world around them gets better and better.
The later will not happen until the “New Heavens and the New Earth”.
The Church is triumphant in the fact that despite what is happening around them, the gates of hell cannot prevail against them.
That is a glorious truth that the Church should hold tenaciously to.
When I see how a lot of the Church is getting liberalized by compromising with the world around them.
I see this as separating the goats from the sheep, some may repent of this because God will reveal the truth. However, the goats will separate and the sheep God will protect.
Tom
Please correct me where and if my understanding is wrong.
Thanks
Doing some more study of the Historic Amil view.
Traditionally speaking, they have always stressed that the Church will always be triumphant; yet this does not mean that the world around them gets better and better.
The later will not happen until the “New Heavens and the New Earth”.
The Church is triumphant in the fact that despite what is happening around them, the gates of hell cannot prevail against them.
That is a glorious truth that the Church should hold tenaciously to.
When I see how a lot of the Church is getting liberalized by compromising with the world around them.
I see this as separating the goats from the sheep, some may repent of this because God will reveal the truth. However, the goats will separate and the sheep God will protect.
Tom
Re: Theonomy - Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:08 AM
Basically, yes. The world will become more and more outwardly wicked although it may appear to be less so from time to time. But it will become extremely wicked just before Christ returns.
The TRUE (invisible) Church is preserved and will be preserved from worldliness and apostasy throughout the history of the world. The visible church is not preserved nor will it be preserved throughout history. This is NOT referring to denominations nor even local churches but those who have not been elected to be saved in Christ albeit many/most profess to be followers of Christ to whatever degree.
Yes, there is a winnowing that has always existed throughout the Church's history, yet many of the 'goats' were not and shall not be revealed until the very last day. The TRUE Church will be triumphant for Christ was triumphant in securing its members through His vicarious substitutionary atonement and resurrection. Not one member of Christ's Church has ever nor ever will be lost. The TRUE Church is but a remnant of the total population of the world including the visible church, yet their number is great. I believe as the writings of Paul and the Apostles wrote in their Epistles revealed and prophesied, that many false teachers and pastors will come which was even so in their own day to lead many astray. NO ONE is a protected class within the visible church. But the sheep will not follow the wolves for they belong to the Shepherd of the sheep and will endure to the end.
The TRUE (invisible) Church is preserved and will be preserved from worldliness and apostasy throughout the history of the world. The visible church is not preserved nor will it be preserved throughout history. This is NOT referring to denominations nor even local churches but those who have not been elected to be saved in Christ albeit many/most profess to be followers of Christ to whatever degree.
Yes, there is a winnowing that has always existed throughout the Church's history, yet many of the 'goats' were not and shall not be revealed until the very last day. The TRUE Church will be triumphant for Christ was triumphant in securing its members through His vicarious substitutionary atonement and resurrection. Not one member of Christ's Church has ever nor ever will be lost. The TRUE Church is but a remnant of the total population of the world including the visible church, yet their number is great. I believe as the writings of Paul and the Apostles wrote in their Epistles revealed and prophesied, that many false teachers and pastors will come which was even so in their own day to lead many astray. NO ONE is a protected class within the visible church. But the sheep will not follow the wolves for they belong to the Shepherd of the sheep and will endure to the end.
Re: Theonomy - Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:56 PM
Jeff, is it possible to be a post-mill without having some Theonomy views?
Re: Theonomy - Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:26 PM
I'm not 100% sure that is possible since the historic Postmill view believes in a "Golden Age" in which the world is basically a Christian world, i.e., the God/Christ rules and the law of God is the law of the land. Isn't that at least what Theonomy teaches or at least hopes will be a reality before Christ returns? Personally, I find nothing in Scripture that would support anything even remotely like that taking place before the coming of Christ. What do you think?
Re: Theonomy - Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:14 PM
Pilgrim thanks that was helpful.
I wrote what I did not to give detail; but to give a general overview for my benefit.
Tom
I wrote what I did not to give detail; but to give a general overview for my benefit.
Tom