Postmillennialism and preterism

It's been a very long time since I looked at Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. But when I was flicking through it today I noticed a section called "Objections to Postmillennialism". This in in his first paragraph:

There are some very serious objections to the Postmillennial theory.

The fundamental idea of the doctrine, that the whole world will gradually be won for Christ, that the life of all nations will in course of time be transformed by the gospel, that righteousness and peace will reign supreme, and that the blessings of the Spirit will be poured out in richer abundance than before, so that the Church will experience a season of unexampled prosperity just before the coming of the Lord, - is not in harmony with the picture of the end of the ages found in Scripture. The Bible teaches indeed that the gospel will spread throughout the world and will exercise a beneficent influence, but does not lead us to expect the conversion of the world, either in this or in a coming age. It stresses the fact that the time immediately preceding the end will be a time of great apostasy, of tribulation and persecution, a time when the faith of many will wax cold, and when they who are loyal to Christ will be subjected to bitter sufferings, and will in some cases even sealed their confession with their blood, Matt. 24:6-14, 21, 22; Luke 18.8; 21.25-28; II Thess. 2:3-12; II Tim. 3:1-6; Rev. 13.

I don't know about "just" before the coming of the Lord but what I found most striking was that, in my view, every one of the six passages he cites in defence of his objection to postmillennialism has reference to first century events.

There are other things to say about the relationship between postmillennialism and preterism but I thought this remarkable.

Covenantal category confusion, disconnect, denial, and abstraction

Trying to sort one or two things out in my own mind.

I do not like this way of setting things up and I do not like this use of these terms but for sake of trying to get my head inside a position, I will play with them. I am not saying that anyone in the universe holds this position or uses these terms in these ways (that might require reading and footnotes and things).

1. Let Covenant of Grace = God’s way of (really, eschatologically, big-S) saving sinners throughout history. Let CG relate to big-E elect and make it the case that only the big E elect (and no others) are in the CG.

2. Let the Old Covenant = God’s relationship with Israel through the time of the Old Testament (and, more specifically, the Mosaic administration). Lots in the OC are not in the CG.

3. Now talk about the New Covenant. Imagine that you assert that the New Covenant is unbreakable and everyone in it is big-E elect.

4. You are using the term NEW Covenant and this means that you are contrasting it with an Old Covenant. What is the OLD Covenant with which you are contrasting the NC?

5. Well, because of the contrast you are saying that the OC is something breakable and something of which it is possible for a non-Elect (big-E) person to be a member.

6. But now, in effect, you are making the NC to be identical with or a manifestation of the CG (in a certain period of history, i.e. post-Jesus).

7. And this way you have category confusion and disconnect and denial and abstraction. Since we do not have access to the list of the big-E Elect, we also do not have access to the list of NC members (when those members are identified with the Elect by making NC unbreakable). It was possible to have access to the list of OC members because OC membership was objectively, historically identifiable to finite human observers: it related to things like circumcision and sacrifice and sanctuary access and self-labelling and prophetic address. This means that where NC members = the Elect then you have

• Category confusion. OC is identified and functions at the level of historically observable categories of which we have knowledge and for which we have moral responsibility. But NC, in this scheme, is identified and functions at the level of the (to us) invisible and inaccessible decree for which we do not have moral responsibility.
  

• Disconnect. It is clear, too, that any argument from the nature of the NC to the proper subjects of baptism is a serious non sequitur. It is not that talk of big-E elect is irrelevant (it’s not irrelevant to know that God will infallibly, eschatologically save everyone he has Elected – it’s wonderful). But it is clearly impossible to aargue that baptism is only for NC members, IF those in the NC = big-E elect. We simply do not know who is in the NC if it is equated with the (post-Jesus) CG. It is soteriologically reassuring (as is the doctrine of Election) but covenantally un-usable.
  

• Denial. At which point the only rescue for the antipaedobaptist use of the nature of the NC is to deny that baptism is really baptism for the non-Elect. They get wet but you deny that they have been baptized. They take bread and wine but you deny that they have taken the body and blood of Jesus. At this point you have a New Covenant which dips in and out of relationship with covenant initiation, the covenant meal, covenant blessings and covenant threats.
  

• Abstraction. This all brings home that the idea of the NC in 3. above is an abstraction from the (true) doctrine of God having a certain and decreed invisible big-E elect.

8. There are, however, other ways of relating these realities. For example, let the OC = the historically observable manifestation of the CG pre-Jesus. Let the NC = the historically observable manifestation of the CG post-Jesus. Then you are able at one and the same time

• to assert and understand the wonderful discontinuities between OC and NC (internalisation, internationalization, greater privileges, historical actualization, human maturation, intensive and extensive access, better motivation, greater permanence etc.) and
• to avoid the category confusion, disconnect, denial, and abstraction described above.

Well, as I say, I don’t know that anybody thinks these things that I've been saying don't work. But if someone thought you could argue from the nature of the New Covenant to antipaedobaptism then I think they’d be on pretty thin ice theologically.

Worship's so time-consuming

Jam Cary on Evangelicalism and Art. Wonderful.

Evangelicals will often find art, creativity and drama to be unnecessary, frivolous and vain; expensive and time-consuming; exclusive and alienating; crass and stereotypical; ambiguous; dangerous and subversive; emotionally manipulative.

Art is frequently all of those things.
Why build a cathedral? Something that keeps the rain off doesn’t have to look that nice, does it?
Why compose a sonata? There are no words! Who’s going to guess the gospel from your music?
Why write a novel? It takes ages and it’ll just be about sinner sinning.
Why make a computer look nice? A nice and an ugly one work just the same.
Why make a subversive film and offend people? We should be peacemakers. Only offend people with the gospel.
Why write an ambiguous story without a happy ending? There is hope in Christ!
Why paint a picture that gives people a warm feeling of vague appreciation? This is just self-regarding vanity!
Why create an art installation? It’s so confusing and weird it doesn’t get your anywhere.
If you’ve got something to say, why don’t you just come out and say it!

Of course, all of the above ignores the fact that God is into beauty. He made the world unnecessarily beautiful.
There are glorious species in creation that we’ve not even seen yet. Why?
There are dozens of varieties of beetle. Why?
The Old Testament is mostly story and poetry! Why?
The Psalms are gushingly emotional. Why are they so manipulative?
Why is temple worship shown to be so time-consuming? Israel could have made better use of that time in the surrounding regions trying to convert the Hittites, the Amorites, The Assyrians, The Babylonians, The Romans and, well, everyone.
Jesus told parable that even his disciples found confusing! Why?
Jesus gave speeches that were intended to offend people. Did he really mean to?
Jesus considered himself worthy of being worshipped with extraordinarily expensive perfume! Why wasn’t it sold and the money given to the poor?
Why is the New Jerusalem so eye-popping beautiful?

Is it at all possible that Evangelicals frequently get this area wrong? And even misunderstand the Bible?

I'm no Evangelical

... at least, I'm not if the Evangelical Manifesto published yesterday is allowed to define the term.

1. I profoundly disagree with the sentiments of this paragraph:

We repudiate on one side the partisans of a sacred public square, those who for religious, historical, or cultural reasons would continue to give a preferred place in public life to one religion which in almost all most current cases would be the Christian faith, but could equally be another faith. In a society as religiously diverse as America today, no one faith should be normative for the entire society, yet there should be room for the free expression of faith in the public square.

and I do so for reasons which I stated at some length in my chapter on the Confessional Christian State in A Higher Throne, available from all good bookstores and not dissimilar to the notes I put online here.

2. And I simply fail to recognize a zeptogram of relevance in these statements:

Let it be known unequivocally that we are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths, including the right to convert to or from the Christian faith. We are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society. ...

At the same time, we repudiate the two main positions into which many are now falling. On the one hand, we repudiate those who believe their way is the only way and the way for everyone, and are therefore prepared to coerce others. Whatever the faith or ideology in question communism, Islam, or even democracy, this position leads inevitably to conflict. Undoubtedly, many people would place all Christians in this category, because of the Emperor Constantine and the state-sponsored oppression he inaugurated, leading to the dangerous alliance between church and state continued in European church-state relations down to the present.

Where are the Christians who do believe in the "imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society" (it already exists - God rules!), or who are "prepared to coerce others"? Mind you, I'm a great fan of the chapter "In Praise of Constantine" in Peter Leithart's Against Christianity. Presumably, then, I endorse "state-sponsored oppression". Oh, come on.

Actually, for the record, I am an Evangelical. I believe the evangel that Jesus is the Saviour King who reigns in righteousness. I believe that the Bible is the authoritative command and promise of the living God. And I believe that a world in which all nations live in conscious and explicit submission to King Jesus and in consistent and growing obedience to the Bible is the world which God intends and demands and, hallelujah, shall actualize - by means of the non-violent, multigenerational, servant-minded, prayerful and loving preaching and living of the gospel in the power of the Spirit. Pure worship, living as the alternative society, serving and praying and witnessing and worshipping, and worshipping and witnessing and praying and serving are always the ways the gospel advances. And as it advances the Kingship of Christ crucified and risen will be ever more widely recognized and enjoyed.

~~~

Postscript, the next morning: Oh look, Doug Wilson's been there already - Twenty Days to a Smoke-Free Tomorrow

Children's church?

What a wonderful article Christopher Hall has put up on Baby Pew Sitters (HT - Brian Nolder).

It's true that it is only comprehensible within a fully covenantal understanding of the church family, of the worship service, of whom and how God saves, and of the Lord's Supper. It's true that it is only do-able where there are biblical expectations of parenting and a whole church culture of consistency and supportiveness. It's true that it's only acceptable to those who've pretty thoroughly dismissed the worldly egalitarian and humanistic views of children which for 30 years have seeped into and taken over the evangelical church.

So it's not something that can be implemented in a week.

But it's still a wonderful article.

Children's church - keep them out or take them out of the family gathering for a separate meeting of their own while the "adults" have a sermon and the Lord's Supper? No thanks.

Children's church - we welcome and include children in the most intense and defining moment of church life in the whole week (the Lord's Day ascent into heaven to meet with the Lord and be forgiven, renewed and strengthened by him through Word and Supper)? Yes please.

What a nice name

William Ames says some pretty dodgy things in his Marrow about what he thinks of as the old covenant (what other reformed writers call the covenant of works), such as this:

the old required perfect obedience of works to be performed by man of his own strength prior to the carrying out of the promise, which would then be in the form of reward.

Ouch.

That said, in his first contrast between God's pre-fall and post-fall ways of relating to humankind, he comes up with a very nice name for the first:

the old was a covenant of friendship, so to speak, between the creator and the creature.

Sweet.

Theological anthropology

Probably too dense to be helpful for those who didn't hear the talk (as well as for some of those who did hear the talk), here are some notes on the theological framework for understanding how humans change:

The theological framework (12 steps!):

1. Christians are well-placed to get this right

On p.12 of Seeing with New Eyes David Powlison gives this utterly gorgeous paragraph from Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Life Together (New York: Harper & Row, 1954), 118-19): The most experienced psychologist or observer of human nature knows infinitely less of the human heart than the simplest Christian who lives beneath the Cross of Jesus. The greatest psychological insight, ability, and experience cannot grasp this one thing: what sin is. Worldly wisdom knows what distress and weakness and failure are, but it does not know the godlessness of man. And so it also does not know that man is destroyed only by his sin and can be healed only by forgiveness. Only the Christian knows this. In the presence of a psychiatrist I can only be a sick man; in the presence of a Christian brother I can dare to be a sinner. The psychiatrist must first search my heart and yet he never plumbs its ultimate depth. The Christian brother knows when I come to him: here is a sinner like myself, a godless man who wants to confess and yearns for God's forgiveness. The psychiatrist views me as if there were no God. The brother views me as I am before the judging and merciful God in the Cross of Jesus Christ.

2. The goal – (HS, S, F) – in God, like God, for God. To live in and as the image of the purposeful, truth-knowing and truth-speaking, loving, God-glorifying God.

3. This happens by getting close to God and God has set up ways for this to happen

a. God is ‘closer’ by way of form, shape, direction in the Word

b. God is ‘closer’ by way of life, energy, motion in the Spirit

c. You don’t – and can’t – have one without the other

4. The cult at the centre of the world:

• The loving God, in the glory of his holiness, intends that his creation should share his glory and holiness.
  

• This will mean that they “come behind the curtain,” that they cross the line.
  

• It is impossible to create the uncreated or the infinite so the “largest” and “best” and “cleverest” thing which God could ever make would still be infinitely short of the glory of his holiness.
  

• It is impossible to create the immutable so this “biggest and brightest creature” will be capable of change.
  

• It is impossible to bring into existence from non-existence a timelessly eternal being so this “biggest and brightest creature” will be temporal.
  

• Thus, short of God’s infinity, the “biggest and brightest creature” will be capable of progression, growth, change – of increasing holiness over time.
  

• That being the case, it makes sense that this reality is captured in the structure of creation – by refusing to “pretend” that everything is as holy as it could be from the very beginning. (Why didn’t God fill the earth from the start? Why weren’t Adam and Eve able to eat from the TOTKOGAE from day 1?)
  

• And this is best captured by holy space and holy time.
  

• But this means that when you enter that holy space and that holy time then you are in “special” existence.
  

• If the creature has will and intelligence and freedom to use them then (under certain circumstances) he may look in the wrong direction for “the thing which is greater than I and towards which I should grow”.
  

• That’s false worship. But notice that it’s still in “worship” that a creature changes. And this is what “worship” is.
  

• It is

1. natural and proper that there should be something like “special worship”
2. natural and proper that this should be the pattern to which the rest of life is meant to conform
3. natural and proper, that is, that what we see behind the curtain is what we become like, more and more.

5. A human being occupies existential “space” (is not “simple” as God is) and thus has an “inside” and an “outside”.

1. Deep me, essential me, heart, soul, inaccessible to me, worked upon by the Spirit (soul)
2. Conscious (or able-to-make-conscious) me, thinking, feeling, deciding, knowing (mind)
3. Present to others, acting, doing me (body)
4. Subject to others, passive, being-done-to me (circumstances)

6. The first and last of these show our contingency, relatedness (Christians are not individualists) and dependence on grace.


7. Human maturity combines self-consciousness and other-person-centredness (and these are not contradictory in a relational ontology)


8. Humans as thinking, feeling, deciding beings (faculty psychology)


9. The primacy of the Word in human change reflects proper order but is not an absolute or exclusive priority because

a. we’re finite and will therefore never fully understand what’s going on and

b. God’s grace takes initiative and we do not restrict his kindness to articulate, self-conscious, consented blessings)

10. So we change

a. from being distant from God (ethically), to being close to God (Father)

b. as we are formed by the truth of God (Son)

c. enlivened / made effective by the life of God (Spirit)

d. in relation to the people of God and for the sake of the kingdom of God (Church and world)

11. Points 5 and 6 above show us that there is change which is outside our power and prevents us from thinking of ourselves as lords of our own destiny. This means that prayer, putting ourselves where the Word is heard and the Spirit likes to act (gospel, church, baptism, supper etc), moving house, taking medication, getting rid of the TV, being smacked are all highly relevant to human change.


12. And point 5 occupies a conceptual level somewhere between “components” and “perspectives”. It is not that these are separate “bits” of a person, though they are distinguishable levels; nor is it that they are simply different ways of referring to the same reality (“perspectives”). Between “components” and “perspectives” comes “system” / “organism” in which the parts/levels are always inter-connected and yet not simply the same thing.

Weary

Weary - yā‛ēph - verb and adjective - in Isaiah:

• youths grow weary - 40.29
  

• idolaters grow weary - 44.12
  

• God does not grow weary - 40.28
  

• the servant of YHWH "sustains" the weary - 50.4
  

• so, those who wait on the LORD, through His Servant, do not grow weary - 40.30

Brrr...

Telegraph piece on global cooling.

Well, not exactly ... but it's a lot more accurate than lots of the global warming headline summaries!

Came the dawn ...

Ta da! A (sort of) publication date for John Frame's (extremely) long-awaited Doctrine of the Christian Life.

June 2008.

Oh, please, please, please may it be true.