FAQ on Theonomy

[gharfish]

Jesus is sovereign. Of course. He doesn't "need" the Kingdom be established first by us, He does expect, then ? It can't and will not be done that way, no matter. The Christianization of the world's systems is not what Jesus had in mind in the--His, parting commands/great commission task. Jesus would not have it as a priority AT ALL for us--what we are to do; make disciples of all people, for their sake and salvation from God's punishment for sin, that we attempt somehow! to reestablish OT Jewish law over the entire Gentile earth, and back onto Israel too. That ?! Nuts to that as any part of obeying Christ's great commission. Let the Israelis establish that themselves, for themselves, if the majority (by vote) wish to so structure their judicial system. But, hey; they already have a biblical code of law, as do we.

God the Holy Spirit, with His salvation gospel plan shared man to man; there's the true hope of changing men's hearts...and so the world. That's the mission; God's will. The law of Moses has not a part in it.

Now, I must leave. I have my mental health to consider. I'm no moron; I have been banned twice already just this year.

[Kelp]

Ok. I was just trying to explain dominionism to you to prevent misrepresentations.

[Glenn P]

Jesus would not have it as a priority AT ALL for us--what we are to do; make disciples of all people, for their sake and salvation from God's punishment for sin, that we attempt somehow! to reestablish OT Jewish law over the entire Gentile earth, and back onto Israel too. That ?! Nuts to that as any part of obeying Christ's great commission.

As this doesn't even seek to address the reasons that were given for Theonomy in the dialogue that I have presented in this thread (and which, I promise, I will add to in the future), it's not something that I really need to comment on.

That's just how I roll,

[gharfish]

Ok. I was just trying to explain dominionism to you to prevent misrepresentations.

Hi Kelp,

OK, because Jesus is God, He is sovereign and all-powerful. Agreed; of course.

As for dominionism: Then it's believed that Jesus does not require but does expect that conditions be made right on earth in advance by His follwers for His return (?) Is that an error, you think ?

You thanked Dr. Jack Bauer for "explaining the difference....." I say that premill, amill, and postmill are three schools of eschatology; yes. Reconstructionists who are all Dominionists and are all postmill (naturally) neccessarily have preterism as their's, hand-to-glove. The men who are core, seminal...founders, [of] the CRM, from Gary North 'to' David Chilton and on (and on); each and all literally taught America preterism to it's popular status. They also are the men as 'big guns' that began trying to shoot down dispy('s) eschatology. Dogging dipsys and here's preterism; it's a "thanks to them" thing.

Do you think that is not accurate ?

Preterism does envision the end in it's own way. It fits the normal definition of eschatology. The concluding four chapters of prophecy which are the chief of all the chronological *endtimes kind* are not past tense. Isn't it so that it's truly eschatological, *categorically, as I have claimed ?



Did that--your, ETA, come a good bit later ? ...because I didn't see that last night before I signed off. I'll say that the "Kingdom now (current age is the Kingdom) thing" *term I used I used to descibe the same CRM postmillinial perceived obligation/responsibility to develop recapture and exercise rule over the world's peoples; every part of every society, individuals and institutions. Kingdom Now isn't heretical for being Kingdom Now, AFAIK! and is found in Charismatic churches, which I understand those same core seminal Dominionist Theonomist Preterist CRM founders brought into their [movement]. The Kingdom Now folks agreed with the goal and plan of Dominionism.




>

[Kelp]

Hi Kelp,

OK, because Jesus is God, He is sovereign and all-powerful. Agreed; of course.

As for dominionism: Then it's believed that Jesus does not require but does expect that conditions be made right on earth in advance by His follwers for His return (?) Is that an error, you think ?

I wouldn't see it as making conditions right, it's just how He wants to change and subdue the earth. In Dominionism, Jesus uses the Spirit working through the Church to purify the earth. Now contrast that with Premill which sees Jesus coming down in the middle of a thoroughly lost world and changing it instantly. See the difference?

As for which one is Biblical, I don't know. I'm still a Premill right now though I'm not good at defending it and I'm still studying. My views could change in the future though.

You thanked Dr. Jack Bauer for "explaining the difference....." I say that premill, amill, and postmill are three schools of eschatology; yes. Reconstructionists who are all Dominionists and are all postmill (naturally) neccessarily have preterism as their's, hand-to-glove.

No they don't. Rushdoony is an Idealist mixed with some other things, as dizzle pointed out. Yes, I know you think Idealism is crap but surely you can appreciate that it is not the same thing as Preterism.

The men who are core, seminal...founders, [of] the CRM, from Gary North 'to' David Chilton and on (and on); each and all literally taught America preterism to it's popular status. They also are the men as 'big guns' that began trying to shoot down dispy('s) eschatology. Dogging dipsys and here's preterism; it's a "thanks to them" thing.

Do you think that is not accurate ?

No, as I understand it, North and the others are not preterists. Now, certainly they would be interested in trying to refute dispensationalism, but as pointed out they are not preterists. I don't know hardly anything about the history of preterism. I think it starts getting popular in the 70s with Gentry and France; which is a decade or two after the CRM crowd was already up and running but don't quote me on that.

Preterism does envision the end in it's own way. It fits the normal definition of eschatology. The concluding four chapters of prophecy which are the chief of all the chronological *endtimes kind* are not past tense. Isn't it so that it's truly eschatological, *categorically, as I have claimed ?

Preterism, furturism, idealism, and historicism are all different ways of reading prophecy, they are methods or looking at the text. An eschatology on the other hand is a doctrine or theory of what the end times will be like. Your view of the last four chapters of Revelation will either be Amil, Premil, or Postmil (or perhaps some combination) and that is your eschatology.

Now, depending on how you see various arguments you can use the principles of preterism, futurism, idealism, and/or historicism to arrive at one of these 'mill views, these theories of how the end of time will play out. You're confusing the tool with what is being built with it. Preterism is a way of reading prophecy, an eschatological theory is what you arrive at using preterism (or futurism or whatever).

Am I right, Jack?

Did that--your, ETA, come a good bit later ? ...because I didn't see that last night before I signed off.

It came a few minutes later when I remembered to add it.

I'll say that the "Kingdom now (current age is the Kingdom) thing" *term I used I used to descibe the same CRM postmillinial perceived obligation/responsibility to develop recapture and exercise rule over the world's peoples; every part of every society, individuals and institutions. Kingdom Now isn't heretical for being Kingdom Now, AFAIK! and is found in Charismatic churches, which I understand those same core seminal Dominionist Theonomist Preterist CRM founders brought into their [movement]. The Kingdom Now folks agreed with the goal and plan of Dominionism.

The Kingdom Now people I was talking about (which I think, the term Kingdom Now was specifically concocted to refer to) are heretical because they propose such Word Faith nonsense as the Deity or eventual Deity of the believer not because they are dominionists.


As for whether their dominionism came from the founders of CRM, I can't say. I've seen some remarks that connect Pat Robertson with them and he is definitely into Rushdoony but I can't say for sure. I do know that Word Faith is big on Old Testament blessings applying today and man needing to have control of the earth, so I'd think the ingredients for Kingdom Now Theology were already there in Word Faith without the need for any of Rushdoony, et al.'s arguments.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, although CRM and Dominionism may be seen to constitute a form of "Kingdom Now" applying the term "Kingdom Now Theology" to it is misleading and technically incorrect as far I can see.

[Dee Dee Warren]

No, what that that make me ? Stubborn? to have the gall to think and act as if that someone (you) had not shown it to be true to me that *one time before ?

OK. Move just one man beyond Rushdoony: Gary North.

There. Satisfied ?

No, it makes you less than honest. You said:

All Dominionists, like you, who are all postmillinialists, have an eschatology and that eschatology is preterism and can be nothing else.

All I have to do is provide examples where that is not true, and your claim is falsified. You keep making this claim over and over; you are corrected; and then you keep repeating it.

[gharfish]

No, as I understand it, North and the others are not preterists. Now, certainly they would be interested in trying to refute dispensationalism, but as pointed out they are not preterists. I don't know hardly anything about the history of preterism. I think it starts getting popular in the 70s with Gentry and France; which is a decade or two after the CRM crowd was already up and running but don't quote me on that.

• Edited by a Moderator •

You aren't a preterst, I realize --> Just an FYI thing: Greg Bahnsen and Gary North and David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar are the very main men founders and upholder of the CRM Dominionists with it's built-in Theonomy and the big time authors all bully for preterism and bash it for "dispenSENSATIONALISM." All preterists. In fact, so much so that if you learned preterism, you learned it from the bigtime books of these men, or people who did so and retold what came from their pens.

Moderated By: OBP

If you feel someone's post crosses the line, use the report button. Carping on it in replies to other posters is only going to bring more moderation.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Kelp]

Ok. Thanks.

[Glenn P]

But one last post, for to be something like a stand-up kind of guy for Kelp, a stand-up & good guy who deserves some kind and extent of a response...

Gharfish, this will not wash. Let's recap (roughly):

- You made statements about eschatology (millennial views) and hermeneutics (i.e. preterism), asserting certain connections between them.
- I replied, correcting this claim and explaining the way that these two things work together.
- You challenged me, asking me where I learned about Theonomy etc.
- I replied and outlined my credentials. I also explained that contrary to your claims, important historic postmillennialists were not preterists at all and the two positions are not wedded to each other.
- Without rebutting the above, eventually you claimed that you were getting agitated and wished to withdraw from the discussion. However you did end with a parting assertion, making a claim with no evidence about preterism/postmillennialism/dominionism.
- I then noted that there was no evidence given for this claim so I didn't have to worry about it. I expressed this by using a pop culture reference that you took great umbrage at (whether genuine or merely for rhetorical purposes, I cannot tell).
- My comment, your outrage at it, and my explanation of myself were all removed. I had no hand in this.

You have now replied to a comment from Kelp, implying that unlike me, he uis a stand up guy who deserves a reply. Now, I'm sure he is, but your dishonesty has now slipped into the "completely blatant" category. A stand up guy? You mean someone who comes to the party with full explanations of his positiona nd gives reasons for changing your claims?

You mean like I was doing all along? Remember gharfish, you claimed that you wanted to withdraw from the discussion because of your own personal issues - you were getting agitated. It had nothing at all to do with my unwillingness to present reasons and discuss the issue. If anything, it was you who was choosing not to be a stand up guy, as it turns out. You've now tried to re-write history, pretending that the discussion ended because of my comment that you took offense at.

That's low and untruthful.

I'll tell you what gharfish: I would much rather have a reputation as a guy who sometimes makes inappropriate pop culture references than as a man who doesn't care about faithfully representing others or being a genuine "stand up" truth teller.

You can decide for yourself which is worse.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I'm no moron; I have been banned twice already just this year.

O Rly? When? By whom? It is only March. If you were "banned" twice already, you would be on suspension for six months at this point. I don't remember you ever being banned, this year or any other year. I do remember you flouncing off (and remember I explained what that term means, so don't go all nuclear again claiming I am saying you are doing something dirty). A flounce is not a ban.

[Kelp]

He might mean the whole, "Don't post in Tektonics" debacle.

[gharfish]

I was banned for two weeks, for two times, dizzle. See for yourself. You can. And, yes, I deserved it, and I do not want it to happen again, you see ! Just *one point, like say for disruption, and I'm gone for another two weeks.

Jack, I really did try to get out of here for relief of stress. And why not?, for I truly believed and felt that I had had my say and substantiated it to a reasonable level of satisfation for any visitor's sake. My replies that followed, you will notice, were then only to Kelp, for he came and was a 'third party' at that kind of late point (after I said I was going, and for what reason).

Yes, Jack, I simply meant that I was breaking my word to leave because I knew that Kelp's corrections and questions were not anything I need get stressed over: I could answer them straightforwardly without freaking...and so I ought to be forthcoming with information and feedback. THAT is what I meant by stand-up. I wasn't going to ignore them when he ought to have some sort of a decent response to posts he made directly to me.

We had not been fighting--no interpersonal tension formed, and it was theology talk, on topic: Theonomy which is of Dominionism. That, and also of the Dominionism (it is a movement); the spreading of preterism knowledge along with the anti-dispensationalism.

I had said all that I had for you, Jack. My information IS factual....so for me it was/had became a matter of being 'end of story' anyhow. I could leave and in good conscience, sure that I had told the truth as best I knew it. I'm therefore not sorry to try to leave. Let it remained unwashed; you cursed badly at me. Get back to answering FAQ on Theonomy? and don't think you can call me that and not think I think you be treated in a special way, for being on staff.


>

[Glenn P]

*yawn* so you do, in fact, want to simply walk away from the cogent explanations I have given as to how, very specifically, it is incorrect to clumsily lump those different views together and insist that they are one (all the while asserting that your facts are correct), gharfish.

Don't think it wasn't noticed.

[gharfish]

Yes ! Hello ?!

"Good save" with the brand new banner, BTW.

[gharfish]

"..........You've now tried to re-write history, pretending that the discussion ended because of my comment that you took offense at.

That's low and untruthful.

I'll tell you what gharfish: I would much rather have a reputation as a guy who sometimes makes inappropriate pop culture references than as a man who doesn't care about faithfully representing others or being a genuine "stand up" truth teller.

You can decide for yourself which is worse.

What ?! I missed this inbetween part (in blue) and shot that you concluded with.

No, not so. How can it be ?! Why ? Well, because you (and anybody) can see that my unified posts, 102 and 104, came *before your 108 one with your "innappropriate pop culture reference."

So, no rewriting of history. No pretending. Not low and untruthful of me !




>