All Sermons

Theonomy a Reformed Baptist Assessment By Sam Waldron

I've entitled this section of the Foreman's course, Theonomy, a Reformed Baptist Assessment.
I'm tempted to subtitle it to what I teased Dave about last night.
All you ever wanted to know about theonomy, were afraid to ask.
Now there are going to be three sections that are dealing with theonomy, hopefully.
If I get anywhere near done.
Section one is introductory considerations.
Introductory considerations.
Section two will be a critique of theonomic post-millennialism.
Section three is entitled Theonomy, Theocracy, and Modern Society.
Which is a critique of theonomic ethics.
So you see that I'm going to be concentrating my attention on two salient features of theonomy, their eschatology and their ethics.
Now, section one then, introductory considerations.
Roman numeral one is a general description of theonomy.
I'm going to be lecturing quite quickly and not stopping to look back very much.
I hope that I can get somebody to type all these notes up in a nice form with all the quotations in the right place.
And that they can be handed out to you folks sometime in the future, in the near future.
So I'm just going to be assuming that that's going to be happening, so you're going to have to listen while I lecture at War Factor 3 or something like that.
So, a general description of theonomy, first of all.
I'm using theonomy in quotes throughout here because theonomy simply means God's law, and I believe in that as firmly as any theonomist does.
So, now, a general description of theonomy.
A is major sources of theonomy.
Now let me ask you this.
How many of you have had any personal contact with theonomy, either in writing, reading the distinctive literature of theonomy, or in talking to people who identify themselves as theonomists?
Jim, you have? Dave has?
All right, a little bit. Okay.
So this whole matter of major sources is an important thing to deal with.
Now, I'm going to deal with the major sources under three headings, three major names that you have to know and that are responsible for the modern theonomic movement.
The first one is, of course, Ruses J. Rush-Dooney.
His name is spelled like that.
Theonomy, as it is also called, Christian Reconstructionism, has for its father, R. J. Rush-Dooney, in his prolific pen.
Among his many books, the ones which are perhaps most important here, are first and foremost, the Institutes of Biblical Law, and his brief treatment entitled,
I thought I had it here someplace.
Yes, I do.
The Meaning of Post-Millennialism, God's Plan for Victory.
Rush-Dooney ascribes to Cornelius Van Til, the greatest influence by far upon his thinking.
Rush-Dooney is the master influence in three theonomic organs, the Chalcedon Foundation, the Journal of Christian Reconstruction, and a newsletter entitled, The Chalcedon Report.
Reconstructionism owes the name theonomy.
His book, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, with a foreword by Rush-Dooney himself, is perhaps the single most influential and controversial of the theonomic literature.
He is also well known for his book, perhaps the best book on the subject to be honest with you, Homosexuality, a Biblical View.
This book illustrates, I say, Homosexuality, a Biblical View, illustrates what is best in the theonomic perspective.
Mr. Bonston is not OPC minister in California.
He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and formerly the professor of apologetics at Reform Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi.
Though a fine apology in the presuppositional school of thought, he was dismissed from RTS in a dispute over theonomy.
The covenant tape ministry distributes tapes of his teaching.
Number three, Gary North.
I remember that Gary North once attended Trinity Baptist Church, which I've got to check out this week.
Anybody know the truthfulness of that?
I am told by authority I would trust that he was actually once attended here, if not a member.
Well anyway, Gary North was formerly editor of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction.
He is now head of the Institute of Christian Economics, acronym is ICE, and associated with Geneva Seminary and Tyler, Texas, a center of theonomic thought.
He is the editor of numerous works, including The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, The Theology of Christian Resistance, The Tactics of Christian Resistance.
He is the author of a popularization of Christian Reconstruction entitled, Unconditional Surrender, God's Plan for Victory, pardon me, God's Program for Victory.
He is also the author of a book entitled, Backward Christian Soldiers, and volume one of an economic commentary on the Bible entitled, The Dominion Covenant, Genesis.
Well those are the major sources of theonomy.
Any questions before I go on about those men?
There are other major names, David Chilton, James Jordan, others that you probably should be familiar with.
But those are the three acknowledged major names, the three that are cited as such in Christianity Today article that I handed out to you.
That brings us, having looked at major sources, to major tenets of theonomy.
The Christian Reconstructionists have themselves defined the major tenets of their system.
Those major tenets, according to their own statements, are presuppositional apologetics, predestination, their view of the biblical law, which can be expressed in Bahnson's phrase when he speaks of the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail, and post-millennialism.
North writes, and I quote him, Mr. Clapp, referring to the author of the Christianity Today article, lists three key doctrines of the Reconstructionists, presuppositional apologetics, biblical law, and post-millennialism.
He left out one crucial doctrine, predestination.
These were the four that David Chilton and I listed in our essay, Apologetics and Strategy, in Christianity and Civilization, number three, 1983.
Since late 1985, those of us at Tyre would have this doctrine, but I think that's kind of inconsequential, so I'm not going to bother you with that.
The four major ones then are presuppositionalism, biblical law, predestination, and post-millennialism.
Now as we come to a preliminary assessment of theonomy, we will comment further on these self-confessed distinctives of Christian Reconstruction.
That brings us to Roman numeral number two. Roman numeral number two, which is a preliminary assessment of theonomy.
And the first thing here, A, which I want to talk about, I'm entitled to the necessity of honesty.
The necessity of honesty. There's a peculiar danger of caricaturing Christian Reconstructionism.
This is aptly illustrated by the recent article in Christianity Today by Rodney Clapp and the rebuttal written by Gary North entitled Democracy as Heresy on the one hand and North's rebuttal is entitled Honest Reporting as Heresy on the other.
These articles I handed out to you because they illustrate this danger of caricaturing theonomy as well as other problems in dealing with theonomy.
Now a number of misconceptions of the teaching of Christian Reconstructionism do exist, and this perspective seems unusually susceptible to misunderstanding.
Some of these misconceptions are, one, theonomists don't believe in the separation of church and state.
Two, theonomists want to impose Christian government on the U.S. by force and revolution.
Three, theonomists are seeking a one-world Christian government.
Four, theonomists believe that the Mosaic law should be the constitution of every nation.
Five, theonomists believe that we are saved by the law.
Six, theonomists believe that a terrible crisis will usher in the millennial period in the next few years.
The power of these ideas is at best a half-truth.
None are warranted by a fair assessment of the literature of theonomy.
Now why is theonomy so susceptible to misunderstanding?
Well, two reasons may be given.
First, theonomists are guilty, frequently guilty, of violent or extreme rhetoric in their writings which gives unnecessary occasion for misunderstanding.
Father Rushdoney set the course in this regard by charging Kelvin, page 9 of the Institutes of Biblical Law, with heretical nonsense.
The last Mr. Confession he charges with confusion and nonsense.
And those tainted with pietism he calls nothing people, pious poops in God's plan for victory.
North also illustrates this tendency by calling Meredith G. Klein and millions of other Christians full-time Christian antinomians.
He also offends by such description as these of the third world.
And since he cites it himself, I'll give it to you.
Rodney Clapp, he's referring to Rodney Clapp, the author of the Christianity Today article, is correct when he cites me as saying that the poverty of the third world stems from its commitment to socialism and outright demonism.
I have said that these societies are cursed.
I would now add that the depopulation of Central Africa from AIDS is a direct judgment of God on the universal promiscuity of these nations.
God will not be mocked.
I'm not necessarily saying that he's wrong. I think that you could discuss that particular perspective a long time biblically.
The point is, that's the kind of rhetoric that has been violently offensive to the broad evangelicalism of Christianity Today and other groups like them.
Now the second reason, so the first reason why the enemies so misunderstood is their own fault, they're guilty of extreme rhetoric in many cases.
The second reason which may be given for the frequent misrepresentation of the enemy is frankly that the position they are advocating runs completely against the grain of 20th century American thinking.
Now that doesn't bother me a great deal.
Though it is no doubt true that they throw around the charge of antinomianism with undue frequency, the fact is that most American and evangelical thinking in our day is grossly sub-biblical in its view of the law.
Frequently one's reaction to those seeking to refute theonomy is to feel more sympathy for the theonomous than those attempting to refute their supposed heresies.
Even at those points where one is disposed to disagree with them, i.e. their advocacy of civil punishment for public blasphemy or idolatry, the fact is that revered fathers in the reformed faith agree with them and not the modern consensus.
Further, the modern consensus against such things, no matter how much we may agree with it in practice, is often defended or based on ways of thinking that undermine basic truths of Christianity.
So that's the necessity of honesty in dealing with theonomy.
The second point here is B, the problem of diversity.
One major difficulty in critiquing theonomy is the diversity of thought within the ranks of Christian reconstructionists themselves.
One must be careful not to treat some particular application of the Mosaic law, for instance, as standard among all theonomists.
Not all theonomists, for instance. Well, I'll get into that.
There is substantial difference of opinion among theonomists as to the specific application of a number of Old Testament law.
Watson makes this point in the preface to the second edition of his Theonomy.
Our outline of the theonomic perspective indicates that it pertains to fundamental underlying ethical principles and is not, as such, committed to distinctive interpretations and applications of the Old Testament moral directives.
In the nature of the case, these principles leave plenty of room for disagreements in biblical exegesis, observation of the world, and reasoning.
Thus theonomists will not necessarily agree with each other in every interpretation and ethical conclusion.
For instance, many like myself do not affirm R.J. Rushton's view of the dietary laws, which he thinks in principle are still valid, and he eats kosher food.
Gary North's view of home mortgages, which I assume North denies that you ought to have a home mortgage.
James Jordan's stance on automatic infant communion without sessional examination, or David Chilton's attitudes toward bribery and repping off the unbeliever.
He's referring to the fact that Chilton and some other theonomists believe that it's wrong to take a bribe but not wrong to give one.
Nevertheless, all share the basic perspective reflected in the above ten propositions.
North himself distances himself from certain of Rushton's peculiarities and honest reporting as heresy.
I quote again, and this is the article that was handed out to you, he says,
So far as I know, all of the younger Reconstructionists reject Mr. Rushtoni's Armenian, no, not Arminian, view of the patriarchal family.
This is a major area of disagreement within the Reconstructionist camp.
The Tyler group, as well as Greg Bonson, holds to the biblical nuclear family where the departure of sons and daughters to set up new covenantal family units, Genesis 2.24, establishes a clear covenantal break with parents.
No man will tolerate living in his father's household. That's an interesting comment because his father-in-law is Rushtoni.
No man will tolerate living in his father's household with his wife and children less forced to by custom or economics.
Another Arminian church practice, Rushtoni's Arminian is in its national background, another Arminian church practice that the article refers to is the practice of sacrificing animals at the door of the church, which Rushtoni discusses in the Institutes of Biblical Law, pages 782 and 783.
Unquestionably, we in Tyler would utterly reject such a practice as a heretical throwback to Old Testament shadows that were completely fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Christ.
It is our rejection of what Mr. Klatt correctly identifies as Rushtoni's Arminian connection that ultimately led to the split in the Reconstructionist camp, Tyler v. Palacito, where Rushtoni is.
It's also well known that Bonson, as a believer in the Christian Sabbath, disagrees with North's vitriolic attack on this doctrine and appendix to Institutes of Biblical Law.
So, North himself is anti-sabotarian, Bonson is pro-sabotarian, and so there are a number of places. The point that I'm making is where theonomists simply disagree with each other and there's no unity of thought, and to critique them at those places and to assume that what Rushtoni says about the dietary laws or about animal sacrifice is true of all theonomists wouldn't necessarily be fair, although the fact is that Rushtoni is the father, and so you get some sense of a problem already in his work.
But, to conclude, in fairness, therefore, to theonomy, one must distinguish their basic perspectives and the necessary applications of those basic perspectives from the particular applications or aberrations of individual writers.
All right, let's see. The difficulty of volume.
One cannot but be impressed by the enormous volume of literature that Christian Reconstructionism is spawning and much of its technical theological writings.
To make concrete the monumental size of the task, simply to read Institutes of Biblical Law and Theonomy and Christian Ethics would involve 1,500 pages of technical theological reading.
Now, the sheer volume of the literature being produced, and they are producing an enormous amount of literature, makes it difficult to gain an accurate assessment.
I do think, having said that, that basing this study, I should say, is based on primarily four books, although I've read a number of other things in addition to this.
The Theonomy and Christian Ethics is the biblical law, God's plans for victory and God's program for victory, which do give, I think, a broad-based understanding of the basic theonomic perspectives.
All right, D, the urgency of the study.
But though there's a great problem of volume in doing the work here, one cannot ignore the Christian Reconstructionists in the hope that they will go away.
There is every indication that they are commanding more and more support and allegiance, or at least are having a formative impact on many prominent Christian leaders.
Two prominent leaders who have felt their impact are in fact Pat Robertson and D. James Kennedy, though neither would describe themselves as full-blown theonomists.
In most, if not all, of the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, theonomy is a very live issue.
Bahnsen documents in his preface to his second edition of Theonomy and Christian Ethics, he documents elaborately the debate stirred by his book, by his book alone, in recent years.
And you just have to read it to see. He's probably footnoted most of the responses to it, but there's an incredible amount of material that his book alone has generated in debate and in response to it.
E, the danger of overreaction.
The clear and present danger of overreacting to theonomy has already been clearly illustrated in Calvinistic Baptist circles.
Carl W. Bogue, writing in The Covenant of Witness, reminds us of this danger. In the article entitled, What Does the Decalogue Summarize?, he says,
At the 1980 Council of Baptist Theology, Ronald McKinney, John Zenz, and others known as Reformed Baptists, charted a new course denying their previously held commitment to Covenant theology.
McKinney and Zenz told me privately what McKinney repeated in his opening address, namely, their conviction that Covenant theology would have necessity lead to the doctrines of infant baptism and theonomy.
Since they were convinced these were wrong, they repudiated Covenant theology.
It is important, therefore, that you face the issue of theonomy now, before you face it in the crucible of the pastorate.
When one sees it creating division and disaster in one's church or in one's individual sheep, as it certainly has in many cases, it is easy under the pressure of the pastorate to overreact theologically.
If, however, we overreact to theonomy, we may well throw out several babies with the bathwater.
While there is still much which one cannot accept, and which on a practical level is of great concern, I have to confess that personally I have been surprised with how much agreement I had on a theoretical level with main theonomic perspectives, especially as I viewed myself in the context of American thought and practice.
F. Therefore, an expression of appreciation.
It would be imbalanced and out of due perspective, therefore, and a course such as this, if it were not noted that at a number of points those who embrace a theonomic perspective are to be commended.
As the previous delineation of the major tenets of theonomy makes clear, there is much with which one can find agreement in their writings.
We wholeheartedly embrace both the reformed doctrine of predestination and a consistently reformed apologetic known as presuppositionalism.
Furthermore, one cannot but appreciate the high, supernaturalist, inerrancy view of Scripture so straightforwardly embraced and exemplified in their writings, especially when it is contrasted with that found in neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical writings.
And when you, as I have done, come from reading neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical epics and read a theonomist, the fact is that it can strike you at first as a breath of fresh air.
Further, no one with a reformed bone in their body can fail to appreciate the consistent emphasis on the sovereign prerogatives of God and his word over every area of human life, whether it be civil, economic, or some other area.
Other areas of appreciation and agreement will be enunciated later. Though these points of agreement do not alleviate our deep concern over the points at which we differ, they do put into perspective the critique in which we are about to engage.
Gee, there is a criticism.
Having warned the student of the various pitfalls surrounding an evaluation of theonomy and placed the present critique into perspective, it is now necessary to articulate two areas which are to be addressed critically in this assessment of theonomy.
Speaking very generally, those areas are their post-millennialism and their view of biblical law. In the remaining two major sections of this assessment, these two areas will be addressed under the heading Section 2, Theonomic Post-Millennialism, Section 3, entitled Theonomy, Theocracy, and Modern Society.
All right, any questions on Section 1?
Professor Wahlberg, did you say the four books were Institute of Biblical Law, Theonomy and Christian Ethics, Unconditional Surrender, and The Meaning of Post-Millennialism?
Yes, I did say that. I think those are probably the four. It would be on the top five or ten list of representatives of the theonomic works of anybody.
Okay, now you see the reason I stress the danger of not overreacting. The very thing that may have brought about in all measure the lapse by many reformed and Calvinistic Baptist into an antinomian perspective in the late 70s and early 80s may have been an overreaction to theonomy.
Certainly, that's where Ron McKinney was coming from.
Any other questions? All right, Section 2 then, Theonomic Post-Millennialism.
I'm going to roll one presented. I'm going to roll two will be critiqued.
In the interest of fairness and clarity, it is well to begin by permitting Christian Reconstructionists to speak for themselves.
Having permitted both Rush, Dooney, and North to describe in their own terms the nature of their post-millennialism, we will conclude this presentation by observing three features of their eschatology.
Rush Dooney, in his popular booklet entitled The Meaning of Post-Millennialism, God's Plan for Victory, presents his eschatology in stark contrast to all what he would call defeatist eschatologies, whether premillennial or amillennial.
Speaking of these other eschatologies, he says,
The role of the saints is at best to grin and bear it and more likely to be victims and martyrs. The world will go from bad to worse in this pessimistic viewpoint.
The Christian must retreat from the world of action and the realization that there is no hope for this world, no worldwide victory of Christ's cause, nor world peace and righteousness.
The law of God is irrelevant because there is no plan of conquest, no plan of triumph in Christ's name and power.
At best, God's law is a plan for private morality, not for men and nations in their every aspect.
Not surprisingly, amillennialism produces a retreatist, retreating in crabbed outlook, a church in which men have no thought of victory but only of endless nick-thinking about trifles.
It produces a Pharisaism of men who believe they are the elect in a world headed for hell, a select elite who must withdraw from the futility of the world around them.
It produces what can be called an orthodox Pharisee's church.
You have to understand that he was once a member of the orthodox Presbyterian church.
I believe it is proper to say he was disciplined from the orthodox Presbyterian church.
It produces what can be called an orthodox Pharisee's church wherein failure is a mark of election.
Lest this seem an exaggeration, one small denomination has a habit of regarding pastors who produce growth in their congregations with some suspicion because it is openly held by many pastors that growth is a mark of compromise, whereas incompetence and failure are marks of election.
Amillennial pastors within this church rightly insist that success surely means compromise and their failures are a mark of purity and election.
Not surprisingly, postmillennials cannot long remain in this basically and almost exclusively amillennial church.
Read between the lines of the orthodox Presbyterian church.
Let us now examine some common traits of amillennialism and premillennialism.
First, both regard attempts to build a Christian society or to further Christian reconstruction as either futile or wrong.
If God has decreed that the world's future is one of downward spiral, then indeed Christian reconstruction is futile.
As a prominent premillennial pastor and radio preacher, the Reverend J. Vernon McGee declared in the early 1950s, you don't polish brass on a sinking ship.
If the world is a sinking ship, then efforts to eliminate prostitution, crime, or any kind of social evil and to expect the Christian conquest of the social order are indeed futile.
He concludes this very same booklet with a summary of his own eschatology.
Though this is fairly lengthy, I think you should have this summary of Rushtonian of his eschatology for you.
It is time now to speak of the areas of much postmillennialism.
I see he has now distinguished himself from some other postmillennialist and its adherents and the reason for their decay.
The heart of postmillennialism is the faith that Christ will through his people, more part of the three most important words in this sentence,
accomplish and put into force the glorious prophecies of Isaiah and all the scriptures that he shall overcome all his enemies through his covenant people
and that he shall exercise his power and kingdom in all the world and over all men and nations so that whether in faith or in defeat, every knee shall bow to him and every tongue shall confess God.
Going on.
How is Christ's kingdom to come?
Scripture is again very definite and explicit.
The glorious peace and prosperity of Christ's reign will be brought about only as people obey the covenant law.
In Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28 and all of scripture, this is plainly stated,
there will be peace and prosperity in the land, the enemy will be destroyed and men will be free of evils only if you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments and do them.
Leviticus 26 3.
The obedience of faith to the law of God produces, again in caps, irresistible blessings and all these blessings shall come on thee and overtake thee if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God.
Deuteronomy 28 2.
On the other hand, disobedience leads to irresistible curses but it shall come to pass if thou will not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee.
Going on.
God's determination of history is thus plainly described in his law.
If we believe and obey, then we are blessed and we prosper in him.
If we deny him and disobey his law, we are cursed and confounded.
Antinomian post-millennials deny that God gave away to God's kingdom when they bypassed the law.
In effect, they posit without reference to it a rapture.
How else is the world going to move from its present depravity into God's order?
Are we going to float in on vague prayers and higher life spirituality?
The antinomian post-millennials have no answer.
The charges often raised at the post-millennialism of the colonial and 19th century Calvinism led to the social gospel of the 20th century.
No one has documented this charge which is obviously false.
The Hodges, Warfield, Machen, and others were not the source of the social gospel and were hostile to it.
The roots of that movement are in Arminianism and very directly in that notable humanist revivalist C.G. Finney.
Now North in his popularization of theonomy gives this summary of his eschatological outlook.
I quote, he has a 15 point system, here's a summary of it.
Well I'll begin with an introduction.
This shows you where they're coming from and why they believe their eschatology is so important.
He says, but isn't it enough to proclaim the foundations of a godly society?
Pardon me, he says, it isn't enough to proclaim the foundations of a godly society,
nor is it sufficient to describe some of the institutional arrangements of such a society.
What is needed is a dynamic, a psychologically motivating impulse to give godly men confidence that their efforts are not in vain
and that their work for the kingdom of God will have meaning in the future, not just in heaven but in time and on earth.
I'll come back to that phrase again.
We need a goal to sacrifice for, a standard of performance that is at the same time a legitimate quest.
What is needed is confidence that all this talk about the marvels of the kingdom of God becomes more than mere talk.
What is needed is a view of history that guarantees to Christians external, visible victory in time and on earth, in black,
as a prelude, a down payment to the absolute and eternal victory which Christians are confident awaits them after the day of judgment.
And he goes on to say, what if the following scenario were the case, and he believes it is.
First, God saves men through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Second, these men respond in faith to God's dominion assignment given to us through our fathers Adam, Noah, and Christ in the great commission, Matthew 28, 18-20.
Third, these regenerate men begin to study the law of God, subduing their own hearts, lives, and areas of responsibility in terms of God's comprehensive law order.
Fourth, the blessings of God begin to flow toward those who are acting in his name and in terms of his law.
Fifth, the stewardship principle of service as a road to leadership begins to be acknowledged by those who call themselves Christian in every sphere of life,
family, institutional church, school, civil government, economy.
This leads to step six, the rise to prominence of Christians in every sphere of life as Satanists begin to become increasingly impotent to handle the crises that their world and life view has created.
Seventh, the law of God is imposed progressively across the face of each society which has declared commitment to Christ.
Eighth, this provokes foreign nations to jealousy and they begin to imitate the Christian social order in order to receive the external blessings.
Ninth, even the Jews are provoked to jealousy and they convert to Christ.
Tenth, the conversion of the Jews leads to an unparalleled explosion of conversions followed by even greater external blessings.
Eleventh, the kingdom of God becomes worldwide in scope, serving as a down payment by God to his people on the restoration which will come beyond the day of judgment.
Twelfth, the forces of Satan have something to provoke them to rebellion after generations of subservience outwardly to the benefits-producing law of God.
Thirteenth, this rebellion by Satan is immediately spashed by Christ in his final return in glory and judgment.
Fourteenth, Satan, his troops of angels, and his human followers are judged and then condemned to the lake of fire.
And finally, fifteenth, God sets up his new heaven and new earth for regenerate men to serve them throughout all eternity.
If men really believe that this scenario is possible, indeed inevitable, will they redouble their efforts to begin to subdue the earth?
Now, that is the anonic post-millennialism in their own words.
Three features of this eschatological outlook must now be underscored.
By the way, do you sense why that's appealing?
It's hard to avoid that sense, right?
Well, three features, then, of this eschatological outlook must now be underscored.
The first is its ethical rationale, or at least its intimate ethical association.
Theanomic post-millennialists believe their system is demanded, or at least strongly commended, by its power to motivate men to keep God's law and every worldly sphere of life.
This is a thread which runs throughout Rushtoni's The Meaning of Post-Millennialism.
Norris' description of his eschatological outlook as a dynamic, a psychologically motivating impulse, makes explicit this emphasis.
Theanomous reason that since the dominion mandate of Genesis 1 demands that we subdue every area of life to God by means of his law,
then that eschatology which most encourages us to do so must be the best and most biblical eschatology.
The second feature which emerges from these quotations is the self-conscious peculiarity of theanomic post-millennialism.
I say the self-conscious peculiarity of theanomic post-millennialism.
Though theanomous can cite those like Jonathan Edwards, whom they call pietistic post-millennials when it suits them,
the quote from Rushtoni above advances a self-conscious distance from those whom Rushtoni calls antinomian post-millennialists.
North, in another work, identifies Jonathan Edwards himself with such pietistic, antinomian post-millennialism,
quoting now from David Chilton's commentary on the book of Revelation entitled Days of Vengeance,
and he has an appendix in which is contained North's essay Common Grace, Eschatology, and Biblical Law.
North there says,
The great defect with the post-millennial revival inaugurated by Jonathan Edwards and his followers in the eighteenth century was their neglect of biblical law.
They expected to see the blessings of God come as a result of merely soteriological preaching.
Look at Edwards' treatise on the religious affections.
There is nothing on the law of God and culture, page after page filled with,
Sorry, this isn't the typical North stuff, and it's humorous at one time and sad at another,
but page after page is filled with the words sweet and sweetness.
A diabetic reader is almost risking a real ass by reading this book in one sitting.
The words sometimes appear four or five times on a page,
and while Edwards was preaching the sweetness of God,
Arminian semi-literates were hot-gospling the holy commonwealth of Connecticut into political antinomianism,
where sweetness and emotional hot flashes are concerned, Calvinistic preaching is no match for antinomian sermons.
The hopeful revival of the 1700s became the Arminian revivals of the early 1800s,
leaving emotionally burned-over districts, cults, and the abolitionist movement as their devastating legacy.
By the way, that's a generally accurate historical statement.
Because the post-millennial preaching of the Edwardians was culturally antinomian and pietistic,
it crippled the remnants of Calvinistic political order in the New England colonies,
helping to produce a vacuum that Arminianism and then Unitarianism filled.
So you see that there's a conscious distance between himself and the kind of post-millennialism that Edwards and others preached.
It is clear that one peculiarity of the anomic post-millennialism is its emphasis on the application of biblical law to every area of human life,
as the means of bringing about millennial blessing.
As North is fond of reminding us, the law is man's instrument or, as there are words, tool of dominion.
This feature of theonomic post-millennialism will be taken up in section 3 of this assessment,
where we deal with the subject of the theocracy.
As the quote from Rush Jr. makes clear the full present applicability of the blessings in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28
and their promise to the obedience of Israel, the theophatic nation,
that is the crucial link which connects obedience to the law with millennial blessing.
Do you see it? They believe that millennial blessing is coming, but they believe that it's coming only in a certain way.
They believe it's only coming by obedience to the law of God in every area of human life.
And the linchpin of their biblical argument for that is the quotation or citation again and again of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.
Now, North seconds Rush Dooney's point in Unconditional Surrender, pages 112 and 197, he says,
God established his covenant with Adam and again with Noah. It was a dominion covenant.
It was man's authorization to subdue the earth, but under God's overall authority under his law.
God also covenanted with Abraham, changing his name to Abraham and instituting the sign of his covenant, circumcision.
God covenanted with Jacob, Abraham's grandson, changing his name to Israel, promising to bless Jacob's efforts.
God covenanted with Moses and the children of Israel, promising to bless them if they conformed to his laws,
but to curse them if they disobeyed, Deuteronomy 8 and Deuteronomy 28.
The covenant was a treaty and it involved mutual obligations and promises.
The ruler, God, offers the peace treaty to a selected man or man and they, in turn, accept its terms of surrender.
The treaty spells out mutual obligations, protection and blessings from the king and obedience on the part of the servants.
It also spells out the terms of judgment, cursings from the king in case of rebellion on the part of the servants.
This same covenant is extended to the church today.
It covers the institutional church and it also applies to nations that agree to conform their laws to God's standard.
That's the theocratic mentality made explicit there.
It says, also, the law of God also provides us with a tool of external dominion.
God promises blessings for that society which surrenders unconditionally to him and then adopts the terms of his peace treaty, Deuteronomy 8 and 28.
The blessings, he goes on to say, forth, the blessings of God begin to flow in the direction of his people.
He's describing in more detail now the 15 points of his post-millennials than I gave you before.
A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just, Proverbs 13.22.
As Benjamin Franklin said, honesty is the best policy.
Capital flows to those who will bear responsibility, predict the future accurately, plan to meet the needs of consumers with a minimum of waste and deal honestly with both suppliers and customers.
Again, Deuteronomy 8 and 28 show us the nature of this wealth transfer process.
The wealth transfer program is through market competition and conformity to God's law.
Satan's kingdom is progressively de-capitalized.
So I assert again that this use of Deuteronomy 28 and its parallel passages is a critical linchpin in the theonomic argument for post-millennialism.
The third feature of theonomic post-millennialism, which must be underscored, though implicit in the above quotations, is not explicit.
It is the rejection of what Chilton calls kiliastic post-millennialism.
Now those are Chilton's words.
They reject what they call kiliastic post-millennialism.
Now what in the world do you suppose they mean by that?
Kiliastic post-millennialism.
Have any idea?
Well, yes, but that's not, certainly kiliastic, kiliasm is the doctrine of a thousand years.
Normally synonymous with millennialism.
The point is that they argue for the historical continuity of the present age until the return of Christ after their golden age.
They reject the idea that the millennium, or at least the future millennial blessings, is to be brought in by a single catastrophic event.
Chilton in his commentary in the book of Revelation writing in Revelation 20 asserts millenarianism can take two general forms.
It can be either pre-millenarianism with the second coming as the cataclysm that ushers in the millennium, or post-millenarianism with the social revolution as the cataclysm.
Examples of the first branch of kiliasm would be, of course, the Ebionite movement of the early church period and modern distance-ationalism of the Schofield Library School.
Examples of the post-millenarian heresy would be easy to name as well.
The Munster Revolt of 1534, Nazism and Marxism, whether Christian or otherwise.
Orthodox Christianity rejects both forms of the millenarian heresy.
Christianity opposes the notion of any new redemptive cataclysm occurring before the last judgment.
Christianity is anti-revolutionary.
Thus, while Christians have always looked forward to the salvation of the world, believing that Christ died and rose again for that purpose,
they also see the kingdom at work as a leavening influence, gradually transforming the world into the image of God.
The definitive cataclysm has already taken place in the finished work of Christ.
Depending on the specific question being asked, therefore...
This is an extraordinary statement for Chilton to make as a theonomic post-millennialist.
Depending on the specific question being asked, therefore, Orthodox Christianity can be considered either amillennial,
in the sense that they don't believe in this heretical kind of millenarianism, or post-millennial, because in reality it is both.
He goes on to say,
With the rise of divergent eschatologies over the last two centuries, the traditional evangelical optimism of the church was tagged with the term post-millennialism,
whether the so-called post-millennialists liked it or not.
This has had positive and negative results.
On the plus side, it is, as we have seen, a technically accurate description of Orthodoxy, and it carries the connotation of optimism.
On the minus side, it can too often be confused with heretical millenarianism,
where you have a social catastrophe or the second coming of Christ bringing in the millennium.
And while amillennialism rightly expresses the orthodox abhorrence of apocalyptic revolution,
it carries both by name and by historic associations a strong connotation of defeatism.
The present writer, therefore, calls himself a post-millennialist, but also seeks to be sensitive to the inadequacies of current theological terminology.
And in a footnote he says,
Some have sought to remedy this by starting themselves optimistic amillennialists,
a term that has nothing wrong with it except a mouthful of syllables.
And there is a problem, because I would not mind calling myself that in some senses,
but he means something entirely different by it.
Some have sought to remedy this by starting themselves optimistic amillennialists,
a term that has nothing wrong with it except a mouthful of syllables.
The term non-kaleastic post-millennialist suffers from the same problem.
North likewise argues from the parables of Matthew 13 that this present age is characterized by historical continuity.
He says,
If we are to take the parable seriously, then we have to begin to think about the continuity of history in between Pentecost and the final judgment.
If there is no great break coming which will divide this period into two or more segments,
then whatever happens to the world, the flesh, the devil, and the church, institutional,
must happen without direct cataclysmic intervention either from God or saint.
The process will be one of growth or decay.
The process may be an ebb and flow, heading for victory for the church or defeat for the church in time and on earth,
but what cannot possibly be true is that the church's victory process or defeat process
will be interrupted or reversed by the direct visible physical intervention of Jesus Christ and his angels.
No discontinuity of history which overcomes the very processes of history in one cataclysmic break will take place.
Christians must not base their hopes for collective or personal victory on an historically unprecedented event in history,
which is in fact the destruction of history.
They will sink or swim, win or lose, in time and on earth by means of the same sorts of processes as we see today,
although the speed will increase or decrease in response to man's ethical conformity to God's law or his rebellion against God's law.
And let me just say at this point such writers are to be commended for the avoiding of a clearly unbiblical extremism
and their attempt to embrace a biblical perspective which I will argue is essentially alien to their own in certain respects.
Now that's the anodic post-millennialism presented. Do you have any questions at this point before I get into the critique of it?
Understand where they're coming from, why they distanced themselves in certain forms of post-millennialism,
from antinomian post-millennialism because there's not sufficient evidence that's on the law,
from kiliastic post-millennialism because you have this kind of social revolution that's going to bring in the millennium,
from both of those things they're distancing themselves.
That's why this emphasis on historical continuities to some extent as I began to read them more kind of surprised me
because I did not think that they would come out that clearly in favor of it because I regard it as essentially alien to their system.
But they are to be commended because they do embrace it. It is a biblical perspective.
What sort of things would you say this is a reaction to or was a reaction to?
Are there post-millennialism?
No, the whole movement, the anodic movement.
I think it's a reaction to certain of the worst features in fundamentalism, an overreaction to it.
The antinomianism of fundamentalism, the pessimism, the world pessimism of dispensationalism, definitely.
And probably there is a kind of amillennialism as well that's quite pessimistic.
I'm convinced that the amillennialism of Poxema and the Protestant Reformed churches is very pessimistic
and there are probably others that he was acquainted with that were quite pessimistic in their amillennialism.
So I had the same spirit of dispensationalism in a different system, a more biblical system.
So I think it's an overreaction to those kind of things, definitely.
All right, let's keep going as far as we can.
The anodic post-millennialism critique.
The time has come to critique the eschatological outlook outlined above.
It is not necessary to delve into the obscure details of biblical prophecy in order to secure an evaluative basis for critiquing it.
We shall limit this critique to examining three fundamental structures in biblical eschatology.
With this data, several aspects of the anomic post-millennialism may be challenged.
The first structure that we're going to use as a basis for critiquing the anomic post-millennialism
is I'm entitling a post-millennialism and the two-age structure of redemptive history.
Post-millennialism and the two-age structure of redemptive history.
A thorough examination of this vital aspect of eschatology must await the formal treatment it is given in the eschatology course in systematic theology.
Here the relevant features of it for the issue at hand may be more briefly presented.
And those features will be presented by way of an introduction and four propositions.
Introduction.
The terminology under discussion, which is the terminology of this age and the age to come,
was developed in all probability by Jewish scribes of the intertestamental period in order to give systematic structure to their view of Old Testament prophecy.
They noticed, these scribes, that again and again the present order of sin and distress was contrasted with a future order
which were variously described in Old Testament prophecy as the era of Israel's redemption, the age of salvation, or the kingdom of God.
This contrast between the present order of sin and distress and the future order, they entitled the distinction between this age and the age to come.
So there was a key schematic systematization of Old Testament prophecy in this terminology that came into use by the scribes.
Now, the fact is, however, that the earliest extant usage of this terminology is that of Jesus.
And though I think there's good reason to think that the scribes developed it, the earliest actual extant evidence of the terminology, the phrase, is that of Jesus himself in the Gospels.
Clearly, Jesus and after him, his apostles, adopted this terminology and thereby sealed it with the divine imprimatur as the correct scheme of Old Testament prophecy.
This terminology, or parts of it, is used 18 times in the New Testament. Parallel phraseology adds many more occurrences to this list.
Instead of this age, you read of this time. Instead of this age, I own you read of this cosmos.
So parallel phraseology would add many more occurrences to the list of 18 explicit occurrences of the whole phrase or parts of it.
This terminology is, therefore, pervasive in the New Testament and structural to its eschatological perspective.
The key word in this terminology is, of course, the Greek word ion.
And this word combines two ideas. The ideas that we express in English by the words age and world.
That is to say, ion is at one and the same time both a spatial and a temporal designation.
Galatians 1-4 speaks of this present evil age.
Well, of course, you understand, gentlemen, that it is not a present evil age in heaven.
You see, there is a spatial limitation to the term age.
And Luke 20-35 speaks of those who are counted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection of the dead.
In that Luke 20-35, in Jesus there is not asserting that wicked men are annihilated and cease to exist before the age to come.
He is simply asserting that they do not exist in that age of the world.
So you see, the term ion is both a spatial and a temporal designation. It means both age and world.
Now this is, in itself, intensely significant.
For by using the phrase the age to come of the eternal state, the Bible clearly designates the eternal state as a temporal and spatial existence.
An existence in time and on earth.
Gary North repeatedly avails himself of the phraseology in time and on earth to speak of and insist upon the coming of millennial blessings in this age before the second coming of Christ.
Now, though one does not need to assume that North believes that the eternal state is therefore a non-time and non-earth existence purely on the basis of his repeated usage of this phraseology,
nonetheless, that phraseology in time and on earth is symptomatic of a tendency among post-millennialists to refuse to allow the eternal state to count with reference to the fulfillment of the dominion mandate or the coming of kingdom blessings.
More shall be said about this later, but suffice to say here that spatial and temporal existence in the new and redeemed earth does count in the Bible for the fulfillment of the dominion mandate and the historical culmination of God's kingdom.
We agree with North that we need an eschatology of victory in time and on earth. This, however, does not mean that we need post-millennialism.
People often speak about history, time, this earth, and that often means something in this age, but the fact is that all of those designations are inadequate because time, this earth, and history continue according to the Bible and the age to come.
Now, having said that by way of introduction, I would like to regard it as a very important tendency of post-millennialism, the tendency to not allow, and I think it's true across the board when you read any kind of post-millennialism, to not allow the eternal state to count with reference to the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
There's a tendency, in some places it's more extreme, in some places less extreme, but it's always there in post-millennialism.
Now, we come then to the four propositions by which we're going to lay out the biblical doctrine of the two ages, the two age structure of redemptive history.
The first proposition is this. This age and the age to come, taken together, exhaust all time, including the endless time of the eternal state.
This age and the age to come, taken together, exhaust all time, including the endless time of the eternal state.
Perhaps the most cogent biblical proof of that is the statement of Jesus in Matthew 12-32 that the one who's committed the unpardonable sin will not be forgiven in this age nor in the age to come.
Now, that is interpreted, that is presented in Mark 3.29, the parallel passage, as never being forgiven.
See, not to be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come is equivalent to never being forgiven, which is just to say that this age and the age to come exhaust all conceivable time.
To not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come is never to be forgiven.
Now, we might add many, many other statements that go on to prove this point and in the notes that you'll be given that this point will be proven.
The point I'm making is just this. This age and the age to come originated at the beginning of human history and exhaust all periods of human existence to all eternity.
If the two ages exhaust all possible time, there is no possibility of a state intermediate between them.
There is no period of human history before this age, there is no period between this age and the age to come, and there is no period after the age to come, it is eternal.
And then I quote Gerardus Vos who says, we have already seen that the distinction between this age and the age to come lies in the line of successiveness.
Where and as soon as the one ceases, the other begins, or at least is at the point of beginning.
The very name coming ion is not merely expressive of futurity, but the language of the Greek there, coming ion, is not merely expressive of the fact that it's coming out there someplace, but also carries with it itself the element of direct successiveness.
So the point I'm making is that if you want to view all of human history, you draw a line, and all of this human history is exhausted by this age and the age to come.
Now, second proposition, this age and the age to come are qualitatively different states of human existence, and qualitatively different periods in the history of the world.
This age and the age to come are qualitatively different states of human existence, and qualitatively different periods in the history of the world.
In other words, this age does not evolve through natural or gradual process into the age to come.
The difference is that between the natural and the supernatural order.
In the key passage here, if you have your Bibles please give them, it's Luke chapter 20, verses 27 through 40.
See, we're going not to some apocalyptic passage in Daniel or Revelation to derive our scheme of biblical prophecy, we're going to the very prosaic and ordinary and understandable language of Jesus in Luke chapter 20.
Better to derive our eschatology from Luke 20 than Revelation 20 is what I'm asserting.
And Luke 20, verses 34 through 36 are the key passage, follow as I read.
And Jesus said to them, after this whole discussion about the woman who had seven husbands,
The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age, see the terminology, this age, that age,
and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, for neither can they die anymore,
for they are like angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Now gentlemen, there are at least four distinctions between this age and that age that are instituted in this passage by Jesus himself.
Could you please give them to me?
First distinction between this age and that age.
Marriage, giving in marriage, no marriage in the age to come.
Second distinction.
Death in this age, no death in the age to come.
Third distinction.
Son of God.
Okay.
Son of the resurrection.
Alright.
Third distinction is you have natural men in this age, in that age you have only resurrected men.
Correct?
To attain to that age is equivalent, appositional relationship there.
To attain to that age is equivalent to attaining to the resurrection.
The sons of God being sons of the resurrection.
So third distinction is you have natural men in this age, resurrected men in the age to come.
Fourth distinction.
Between this age and the age to come.
More explicit I think.
Gentlemen, isn't it implied that the sons of the devil and righteous men coexist in this age,
but in the age to come you have only sons of God in that no resurrected condition?
Am I, do you see that?
Those who are considered worthy to attain to that age, equivalent to attaining to the resurrection from the dead.
Now here Jesus is not thinking of the non-soteriological resurrection of the unrighteous.
He's thinking exclusively as in so many places in the New Testament of the resurrection of the righteous as a soteriological blessing
and he talks about therefore those who are considered worthy to attain to that age
and the resurrection from the dead and the inhabitants of that age being sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
So within this very clear, uncomplicated passage you have a very qualitative distinction instituted between the two ages of human history.
This age is an age of marriage, death, natural men and good and evil.
The age to come is an age of no marriage, no death, of resurrected men only,
or we might say only sons of God in that and the resurrected condition.
Now the language here is paralleled in Matthew chapter 13.
In the parable of the tares,
The king of heaven may be compared, verse 24, to a man who sowed good seed in his field,
but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat and went away.
But when the wheat sprang up and bore grain, then the tares became evident also,
and the slaves of the land overcame and said to him,
Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?
He said to them, An enemy has done this, and the slaves said to him, You asked them to go and gather them up?
But he said, No, lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them.
Allow both to grow together into the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers,
Please first gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.
Verse 36, When they left, they went in the house.
The disciples asked him to explain this parable, and he said,
The one who sows the good seed is the son of man, and the field is the world,
and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom, and the tares are the sons of the evil one,
and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age.
And I think there is a textual variant here. It could also be read the end of this age.
Anyway, the consummation of the age is an implicit reference to the two age terminology.
The consummation of the age. What happens at the consummation of the age?
Just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the consummation of the age.
I think a textual variant says this age.
The son of man will send forth his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks,
and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire.
In that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Then the righteous will shine forth, a clear reference to the resurrection,
as the son and the kingdom of their father.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
And again, in this passage you have two periods of time.
One is the harvest, and in the same time you have good and evil men mixed together.
You have natural men. They are not those with the glory of the resurrection.
They may be destroyed by the judgment in the harvest,
and after the harvest you have only the good in the kingdom of Jesus Christ,
and only in a resurrected condition shining forth with the glory of their father.
All right. Well, that brings us to the end of our rope here.
Any questions before we dismiss?
This recording is brought to you by thechristianlibrary.org.au