7 thoughts on “James Jordan on the End of the World”

  1. Jordan is an old theonomist, note his older works on slavery in the Bible, and biblical dietary years. I was a theonomist myself, back in the 80’s.. for a few years. He must be postmill, like all good theonomists. To the life and mind of me, I just don’t see how someone, especially, as old as Jordon can seek to sustain this position? Note I am a few months older than Jordan, myself. I am historic pre-mill myself, in the likes of an Irenaeus, and the modern George Elton Ladd. 🙂

  2. You should really listen to his presentation. He is postmil, he is no longer theonomist. He now calls himself a post-reconstructionist. In an essay published in 1988, Jordan stated:

    My own position is as follows: The law of God as given at Mount Sinai is far too full and rich a revelation to admit of any simple classification scheme. Being a revelation of God, it has mysterious depths to it, because of the incomprehensibility of God. The transformation of the Old into the New Covenant is, again, a total and thoroughgoing event, and thus infinitely complex for the same reason. Accordingly, there is no formula, theonomic or otherwise, that can be found to dictate with precision how the Sinaitic revelation of the law applies in the New Covenant. Rather, the task of the Church through the millennia is to obey what is clearly mandated, and to labor to understand what is unclear. Every bit of the Sinaitic revelation is practically relevant to the life of Christendom, but in exactly what way is not always clear. It is obvious what “you shall not commit adultery” means in the New Covenant. It is not obvious what “you shall not cut off the sides of your heads” means.

    1. Joel,

      Yes, I am very aware of post-reconstructionistism, I was not sure you were? It is just another modification to my mind of the post-mill. Don’t get me wrong, I value Jordon and Leithart very much, etc., note I am very friendly with the FV, as an Anglican, for the need of the covenant (visibly) in the church (Heb. 10:29, etc.), and the sacraments/sacramental, (Acts 2:42).

  3. Yes, I am on an email list with James Jordan and Leithart, and very much follow them. In my mind, their approach fits very well within Anglicanism. Probably because Jordan considers himself Bucerian.

      1. We must be careful with just how the Covenant is applied in the visible Church, there have been some poor statements here with some in the FV, at least in my theological opinion. I have written myself, though only in theological essay form, on some of this. And I have preached myself a few times in the Presbyterian Church (FV friendly).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.