Postmillennialism and the Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dachaser said:
If that is true, then why did Jesus allow for the non stoning of those guilty of capital offenses as under the law?
Click to expand...

We've answered this question about a dozen times now. It was a non-case. They didn't produce evidence, witnesses, or all of the guilty parties, which they were required to do.
 
TylerRay said:
"General equity" refers to general principles of justice that were behind many of the judicial laws.
Click to expand...


General Equity is moral, in that it confirms the Ten Commandments.

"Common and natural equity...[is]..written in the heart of man by nature" (Alexander Henderson, A sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons At Their Solemn Fast, Dec. 27, 1643)

"Common equity..[is]..the principles of reason and nature" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)

General equity is "founded in the law of nature common to all nations" (Robert Shaw, Exposition on the Confession, Pg. 225)

General equity serves "to the maintenance of the Moral Law" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)

"That which we account moral, and to have a perpetual equity, is the substance of the [moral] Law" (William Gouge, A learned and very useful commentary on the whole epistle to the Hebrews, 170-171)
 
Andrew P.C. said:
General Equity is moral, in that it confirms the Ten Commandments.

"Common and natural equity...[is]..written in the heart of man by nature" (Alexander Henderson, A sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons At Their Solemn Fast, Dec. 27, 1643)

"Common equity..[is]..the principles of reason and nature" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)

General equity is "founded in the law of nature common to all nations" (Robert Shaw, Exposition on the Confession, Pg. 225)

General equity serves "to the maintenance of the Moral Law" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)

"That which we account moral, and to have a perpetual equity, is the substance of the [moral] Law" (William Gouge, A learned and very useful commentary on the whole epistle to the Hebrews, 170-171)
Click to expand...
Right. That's what I was getting at--equity means justice, and justice is moral and universal.

I think folks get hung up on the term general equity sometimes, simply because it isn't our usual way of talking. However, it is a very simple concept. Equity means fairness or justice. General means universal. So, general equity refers to universal principles of justice reflective of the moral code that God has written in the heart of man.

A good example is the principle of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." This simply means that the punishment must fit the crime. Who would deny that this is a universal principle of justice?
 
Andrew P.C. said:
General Equity is moral, in that it confirms the Ten Commandments.

"Common and natural equity...[is]..written in the heart of man by nature" (Alexander Henderson, A sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons At Their Solemn Fast, Dec. 27, 1643)

"Common equity..[is]..the principles of reason and nature" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)

General equity is "founded in the law of nature common to all nations" (Robert Shaw, Exposition on the Confession, Pg. 225)

General equity serves "to the maintenance of the Moral Law" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)

"That which we account moral, and to have a perpetual equity, is the substance of the [moral] Law" (William Gouge, A learned and very useful commentary on the whole epistle to the Hebrews, 170-171)
Click to expand...
The Lord does not require though the death penalty to be enacted in the same fashion for the same crimes as he did in Israel
 
Dachaser said:
He still though pardoned the woman, as he did know that while the method accusing her was not proper, she was still guilty as charged.
Click to expand...
There was no legal trial. If she had been tried in an actual court, and found guilty, Jesus would have supported her punishment. It's the magistrate's duty to exercise justice.

That is not to say that Jesus, as the Divine Messiah, wouldn't have forgiven her; but it isn't the job of the civil magistrate to administer God's forgiveness.

We're getting down another rabbit trail. The point is that Jesus did not contradict the law.
 
TylerRay said:
There was no legal trial. If she had been tried in an actual court, and found guilty, Jesus would have supported her punishment. It's the magistrate's duty to exercise justice.

That is not to say that Jesus, as the Divine Messiah, wouldn't have forgiven her; but it isn't the job of the civil magistrate to administer God's forgiveness.

We're getting down another rabbit trail. The point is that Jesus did not contradict the law.
Click to expand...
No, but Jesus, as he is God, was able to show her Grace and pardon and allowed her to stay alive.
 
TylerRay said:
Prove it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you haven't proven it.
Click to expand...
John Himself tells us that there is a sin that will lead to death, but that does not mean all of the sins that demanded the person to commit that sin to die under the Old Covenant would still be enforced now under the New Covenant established by Christ.
 
Dachaser said:
John Himself tells us that there is a sin that will lead to death, but that does not mean all of the sins that demanded the person to commit that sin to die under the Old Covenant would still be enforced now under the New Covenant established by Christ.
Click to expand...
David, you aren't drawing proper distinctions. We aren't talking about the administration of the covenant. We're talking about the moral duty of magistrates to administer justice. The magistrate, in his office, is not under the administration of the covenant.
 
TylerRay said:
David, you aren't drawing proper distinctions. We aren't talking about the administration of the covenant. We're talking about the moral duty of magistrates to administer justice. The magistrate, in his office, is not under the administration of the covenant.
Click to expand...
I see, so you are referring here to the civil leadership, government, is under the moral obligation and duty to enact punishment due to be rendered for certain crimes that have been committed, so speaking here towards the judicial system, and not the religious one, correct?
 
Dachaser said:
I see, so you are referring here to the civil leadership, government, is under the moral obligation and duty to enact punishment due to be rendered for certain crimes that have been committed, so speaking here towards the judicial system, and not the religious one, correct?
Click to expand...
That's correct.
 
And not all religious sins are crimes. Believing in a false god is a sin, but since it is private it is difficult for a magistrate to even know how to prosecute it.

Getting drunk is a sin, not a crime (unless you get behind a wheel).
 
BayouHuguenot said:
And not all religious sins are crimes. Believing in a false god is a sin, but since it is private it is difficult for a magistrate to even know how to prosecute it.

Getting drunk is a sin, not a crime (unless you get behind a wheel).
Click to expand...
Holding to a false religion and god would give a different penalty than murder would in society.
 
Dachaser said:
Holding to a false religion and god would give a different penalty than murder would in society.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Those are sins but not necessarily crimes. If someone secretly worships Moloch, that is a sin. But as a prosecutor there isn't too much I can do about that. Building a temple to Moloch, by contrast, is a crime and would get the death penalty.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
And not all religious sins are crimes. Believing in a false god is a sin, but since it is private it is difficult for a magistrate to even know how to prosecute it.

Getting drunk is a sin, not a crime (unless you get behind a wheel).
Click to expand...
And coveting is a sin that is impossible for a finite magistrate to prosecute. Only when the coveting manifests in a concrete action within the realm of another of the Ten Words, can the magistrate even enter the fray.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Not necessarily. Those are sins but not necessarily crimes. If someone secretly worships Moloch, that is a sin. But as a prosecutor there isn't too much I can do about that. Building a temple to Moloch, by contrast, is a crime and would get the death penalty.
Click to expand...
That death penalty would be enacted under the Mosaic law, but not under our nations laws, correct?
 
pslagle2012 said:
I very much lean toward a postmillennial view of eschatology, however I just can't swallow the theonomic or Covenanter views of the law and its place in the millennium. I hold to the usual Reformed view of the threefold division of the law, with only the moral law being binding. I also definitely believe that the millennium will be ushered in by the preaching of the gospel not through cultural transformation or the influence of the law on politics.

I am unable to find much online about non-theonomic postmillennialism and have at least found some evidence that older postmils held similar beliefs to mine ("pietistic postmillennialism?"). I was wondering if anyone has some resources that are based on a non-theonomic view of postmillennialism and possibly book recommendations. Also, any authors or theologians who held this view would be helpful. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I am not understanding how one can hold to a optimistic view of the future (postmil) where the the knowledge and glory of the Lord covers the whole face of the earth progressively through history and not see how God's Law has a place in that future. Unless one views the Law as being a bad thing - which it is, of course, not. The Law is good, it is just, it reflects the character of God. It is part of the glory of God. The future of the world is not bright if it does not entail obedience to the Law of God, no more than an individual Christians future is bright if he is not brought to greater conformity to God's Law - all by the Spirit, through regeneration and faith.

Likewise, how can you have a nation (or world) made up principally of regenerate Christians without a transformed culture - including businesses, politics, the arts, etc. As an example, if a pagan couple is converted to Christ, regenerated, and brought into the Church, how is that family and marriage not transformed? How is their family culture - parenting, education, service, etc. not transformed by the preaching of the Gospel and receiving it by faith? It is necessarily transformed. So with society at large - and if that link is not appropriate that one must explain how it is not appropriate. If 99.9% of a nation believes the Gospel than this will be reflected in how their laws, economy, etc. are changed from pagan convictions to Christian convictions.

Sorry, but this "non transformational" idea is just not computing with me. One may disagree with theonomy in the Rushdoony sense of a more strict application of OT civil law. But I don't see how one can reject God's Law outright as the standard for the betterment of society - especially in an optimistic future.

Because of this, I don't know that I have any resources to offer. Stuff by Edwards (History of the Work of Redemption) and maybe Murray (Puritan Hope) may be "pious" as opposed to "theonomic" in the sense that they more so emphasized worship as a basis for their hope. But I think this is too simplistic as both pure worship and justice are a part of Christian character. Of course Edwards and the older Puritans held to God's Law as the standard for society. They believed that a converted nation will reflect the character of God in their dealings. They might not agree on specifics - which Laws from the OT carry over, what was part of the general equity and what was a shadow and type, etc. - but they agreed that specific aspects of public life would necessarily be transformed in this optimistic future. And they believed that they happened by means of the preaching of the Gospel, individual regeneration/salvation, covenant succession, and sanctification - reformation not revolution.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it would be helpful to ask, as one who holds to the postmil position, what do you think the future will look like? In a world where most people and nations are converted to Christ, what would culture look like? Would it look the same as today? (abortion, sex trafficking, corrupt businesses, corrupt and huge government, immoral and ugly 'art', immodest dress, etc.) Or would it look exceedingly different?
 
zsmcd said:
Maybe it would be helpful to ask, as one who holds to the postmil position, what do you think the future will look like? In a world where most people and nations are converted to Christ, what would culture look like? Would it look the same as today? (abortion, sex trafficking, corrupt businesses, corrupt and huge government, immoral and ugly 'art', immodest dress, etc.) Or would it look exceedingly different?
Click to expand...
Being one holding to a preMil position, I see the scriptures teaching that the Church main mission is to preach Jesus, to see Him saving sinners into His Kingdom, and the Kingdom will come in full and be established here upon the earth at His second coming.
So I would see the reign and rule of Jesus not fully established here on earth until He returns to set that up.
 
Last edited:
Dachaser said:
I see the scriptures teaching that the Church main mission is to preach Jesus, to see Him saving sinners into His Kingdom, and the Kingdom will come in full and be established here upon the earth at His second coming.
Click to expand...

Assuming that Jesus is successful in getting people converted, will those people act converted in their daily lives?
 
Dachaser said:
Being one holding to a preMil position, I see the scriptures teaching that the Church main mission is to preach Jesus, to see Him saving sinners into His Kingdom, and the Kingdom will come in full and be established here upon the earth at His second coming.
So I would see the reign and rule of Jesus not fully established here on earth until He returns to set that up.
Click to expand...

I was directing my question to the OP. Still though, here is what Jesus says the mission of the Church is:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

So my response to you is this:
- What does "preach Jesus" mean? Does it mean to just preach the doctrines of grace? Is that what Jesus directed the church to do in the Great Commission? Of course the doctrines of grace are central to the church's teaching, but Jesus commands the church to teach the nations all that he has commanded.
- What exactly is a "Kingdom," what does it consist of, and what is Jesus' Kingdom? When we are brought into Jesus' Kingdom, what effect does that have on the way we live our lives privately and publically? When a civil magistrate is converted to Christ, Christ becomes his King. Does that magistrate have a duty to obey Christ as a civil magistrate and not just a private Christian? If the whole of a nation converts to Christ and enters into his Kingdom, what effect does that have on their laws?

I am not here to debate postmil vs premil eschatology. I can kindasorta understand that, if one holds to a premil position and believes that the world and culture and nations are going to hell in a hand basket, then one would not expect for a nation's laws to ever reflect God's Laws.

However, you still have to deal with the ethic of particular situations and the duty that we have towards obedience to God's Law. i.e. can you, as a Christian who is commanded to love God and neighbor, be said to be loving God and neighbor if you are not striving to see justice for your neighbor in the civil realm? We know that the standard for justice is God's Law, so can you be an obedient Christian and love your neighbor while simultaneously denying your neighbor justice in the civil realm?
 
Last edited:
BayouHuguenot said:
Assuming that Jesus is successful in getting people converted, will those people act converted in their daily lives?
Click to expand...
yes, they should be, but we will always be in the minority, as the Kingdoms of this Age will not be summit to Jesus until he returns to force them to.
 
zsmcd said:
I was directing my question to the OP. Still though, here is what Jesus says the mission of the Church is:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

So my response to you is this:
- What does "preach Jesus" mean? Does it mean to just preach the doctrines of grace? Is that what Jesus directed the church to do in the Great Commission? Of course the doctrines of grace are central to the church's teaching, but Jesus commands the church to teach the nations all that he has commanded.
- What exactly is a "Kingdom," what does it consist of, and what is Jesus' Kingdom? When we are brought into Jesus' Kingdom, what effect does that have on the way we live our lives privately and publically? If a civil magistrate is converted to Christ that means that Jesus is now his King. Does the magistrate now have a duty to obey Christ as a civil magistrate? If the whole of a nation converts to Christ and enters into his Kingdom, what effect does that have on their laws?

I am not here to debate postmil vs premil. I can kindasorta understand that, if one holds to a premil position and believes that the world and culture and nations are going to hell in a hand basket, then one would not expect for judicial laws to ever reflect God's Laws. However, you still have to deal with the ethic of your situations and the duty that men have towards obedience. i.e. can you, as a Christian who is to love God and neighbor, be said to be loving God and neighbor if you are not striving to see justice for your neighbor in the civil realm? We know that the standard for justice is God's Law, so can you be an obedient Christian and love your neighbor while simultaneously denying your neighbor justice in the civil realm?
Click to expand...
Again, while we should try to be Christian principles into our cultures, we are mandated to be do that as our primary focus, as we are to preach to see God save out His own, and to then discipline and mature those now saved. We will still influence our cultures and relationships, but not in full will that happen until the Second Coming occurs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top