A few worthy blog-posts out there in Cyberdom.
Matthew Mason writes to his congregation on the Rowan/Sharia thing.
Douglas Wilson calls British Christians to imagine by faith. Best quote: "After the resurrection, the Lord Jesus was given this invitation -- ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. Does any Christian seriously want to say that Jesus was given this invitation and that He didn't ask for Great Britain?"
Showing posts with label Postmillenialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Postmillenialism. Show all posts
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Friday, November 30, 2007
Gospel Optimism 9: Headlines and Eschatology
Simply put, one of the reasons optimistic eschatology fell from a place of dominance to occupy the sidelines of the evangelical world was that two world wars and the social-moral upheavals of the 20th century seemed to suggest things really could only get worse. But of course, it's bad news for theology to be based on the newspaper headlines rather than thoughtful, careful examination of the scriptures.
The Jollyblogger thinks postmillenialism might be making a comeback, and that this might be linked to brighter headlines in the US. He (not a post-mill) thinks it would be quite a good thing for postmillenialism to come back, but that any comeback shouldn't be based on the news headlines. I (a post-mill) agree with him on both counts.
Also of note, the article he links to includes an intriguing comment;
These days many evangelicals talk like premillennialists but act like postmillennialists. They expect the world to get worse and worse but preach the gospel, lobby politicians, and fight for social justice in order to make it a better place.
The Jollyblogger thinks postmillenialism might be making a comeback, and that this might be linked to brighter headlines in the US. He (not a post-mill) thinks it would be quite a good thing for postmillenialism to come back, but that any comeback shouldn't be based on the news headlines. I (a post-mill) agree with him on both counts.
Also of note, the article he links to includes an intriguing comment;
These days many evangelicals talk like premillennialists but act like postmillennialists. They expect the world to get worse and worse but preach the gospel, lobby politicians, and fight for social justice in order to make it a better place.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Postmillenialism and Suffering 3 (updated)
The Christian life is characterised by the cross. Does this refute postmillenialism - the idea that the gospel will triumph in history?
1. Of course, we must affirm that the Christian life is characterised by the cross. To say anything less is an over-realised eschatology. However, we can say more (and a-mill brothers and sisters would of course want to agree with this) – the Christian life is characterised by the cross because of union with Christ.
2. Union is with the whole of him, and therefore his resurrection as well as his cross.
3. In fact the two (cross and resurrection) cannot be separated. For the cross is the route to glory, the cross is (because of the resurrection) an example of victory through suffering. The Christian life is a life of cross and resurrection.
4. But what shape does this victory/resurrection aspect of the Christian life take in the present (i.e. before its ultimate in bodily resurrection at the 2nd coming)?
a. Patient endurance despite persecution and suffering.
b. Justification.
c. Regeneration.
d. Sanctification (progressive, though not perfect, victory over sin in the life of the believer, increasing moral conformity to Christ, etc.).
Few would disagree with a. through d. However, are there any other manifestations of resurrection-life/victory-through suffering spoken of in the scripture? I would say yes. Consider these verses from 1 Peter - an epistle in some ways majoring on the 'Christian life involves suffering and persecution' theme;
1 Peter 2:11-12. The suffering of the Christian under persecution results in the conversion of the persecutor.
1 Peter 2:15. The good living under fire of the Christian silences the ignorance of the persecutor.
1 Peter 5:10. God establishes and strengthens the church after she has suffered for a little while.
The poignant thing here is how these promises of victory are connected to persecution. Now, we could argue forever about ‘when’ 5:10 happens – is it within history or only at the 2nd coming? But, it is pretty hard to argue that 1 Peter 2:11-12 and 15 are only to be experienced at the 2nd coming. Even if ‘the day of visitation’ is ‘end of time judgment day’ (which I don’t think it is) then what is being predicted in that verse is still undoubtedly conversion – a within-history victory of the gospel over some of the church’s persecutors.
Also, just because Peter seems only to be putting forward 2:11-12 as a possibility doesn’t undermine the point. It’s clearly something that does happen (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) – I assume Peter’s uncertainty to be related to his not knowing the elect status of the specific persecutor’s in mind, rather than his doubting that this is a strategy for gospel growth that God uses! That he even puts it forward as a possibility shows that we have a further category to add to a. to d. with regard to the sort of victory that the Church can experience within history.
e. Gospel-conquest through the cross-living of the Church.
Peter doesn’t see this silencing and converting of former persecutors as being in conflict with the cross-shaped reality of the Christian life. Rather he sees the cross-living of Christians as instrumental in the whole thing.
The point is not that these verses somehow prove postmillenialism (there are many other passages and themes that we could turn to for mounting that argument) but rather that, even before considering 'proof-texts' for postmillenialism it can be demonstrated that e. is a part of the resurrection/victory side of union with Christ experienced by the Church prior to Christ's return. That the Christian life is cross-shaped does not mean the gospel won't win, or that persecution can't be reduced by that victory. Postmillennialism argues that what the apostle Peter is suggesting could happen on a local scale for the believers in Asia Minor, the bible elsewhere predicts will eventually and gradually happen on a massive scale before Jesus Christ returns. Cross-shaped living is instrumental in the victory of the gospel.
1. Of course, we must affirm that the Christian life is characterised by the cross. To say anything less is an over-realised eschatology. However, we can say more (and a-mill brothers and sisters would of course want to agree with this) – the Christian life is characterised by the cross because of union with Christ.
2. Union is with the whole of him, and therefore his resurrection as well as his cross.
3. In fact the two (cross and resurrection) cannot be separated. For the cross is the route to glory, the cross is (because of the resurrection) an example of victory through suffering. The Christian life is a life of cross and resurrection.
4. But what shape does this victory/resurrection aspect of the Christian life take in the present (i.e. before its ultimate in bodily resurrection at the 2nd coming)?
a. Patient endurance despite persecution and suffering.
b. Justification.
c. Regeneration.
d. Sanctification (progressive, though not perfect, victory over sin in the life of the believer, increasing moral conformity to Christ, etc.).
Few would disagree with a. through d. However, are there any other manifestations of resurrection-life/victory-through suffering spoken of in the scripture? I would say yes. Consider these verses from 1 Peter - an epistle in some ways majoring on the 'Christian life involves suffering and persecution' theme;
1 Peter 2:11-12. The suffering of the Christian under persecution results in the conversion of the persecutor.
1 Peter 2:15. The good living under fire of the Christian silences the ignorance of the persecutor.
1 Peter 5:10. God establishes and strengthens the church after she has suffered for a little while.
The poignant thing here is how these promises of victory are connected to persecution. Now, we could argue forever about ‘when’ 5:10 happens – is it within history or only at the 2nd coming? But, it is pretty hard to argue that 1 Peter 2:11-12 and 15 are only to be experienced at the 2nd coming. Even if ‘the day of visitation’ is ‘end of time judgment day’ (which I don’t think it is) then what is being predicted in that verse is still undoubtedly conversion – a within-history victory of the gospel over some of the church’s persecutors.
Also, just because Peter seems only to be putting forward 2:11-12 as a possibility doesn’t undermine the point. It’s clearly something that does happen (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) – I assume Peter’s uncertainty to be related to his not knowing the elect status of the specific persecutor’s in mind, rather than his doubting that this is a strategy for gospel growth that God uses! That he even puts it forward as a possibility shows that we have a further category to add to a. to d. with regard to the sort of victory that the Church can experience within history.
e. Gospel-conquest through the cross-living of the Church.
Peter doesn’t see this silencing and converting of former persecutors as being in conflict with the cross-shaped reality of the Christian life. Rather he sees the cross-living of Christians as instrumental in the whole thing.
The point is not that these verses somehow prove postmillenialism (there are many other passages and themes that we could turn to for mounting that argument) but rather that, even before considering 'proof-texts' for postmillenialism it can be demonstrated that e. is a part of the resurrection/victory side of union with Christ experienced by the Church prior to Christ's return. That the Christian life is cross-shaped does not mean the gospel won't win, or that persecution can't be reduced by that victory. Postmillennialism argues that what the apostle Peter is suggesting could happen on a local scale for the believers in Asia Minor, the bible elsewhere predicts will eventually and gradually happen on a massive scale before Jesus Christ returns. Cross-shaped living is instrumental in the victory of the gospel.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Postmillenialism and Suffering 1
One of the big big problems some people have with the idea that Jesus will return to a majority-Christian earth at his second coming is that such a situation would presumably require a very significant reduction in persecution. And, after all, doesn't the bible say that Christians should expect persecution?
The obvious thing to say upfront is that Christians will always suffer until the second coming (in their struggle against sin, in their coping with a dying and decaying body, in their having to set aside their own interests to serve and honour others etc.). But should all Christians at all times in history expect to experience suffering of the persecution variety? Here are my initial problems with such a view;
A. It hasn’t been true for all Christians throughout every period of history.
B. It isn’t true for all Christians throughout the world now.
C. A and B haven't always been because of unfaithfulness/compromise/laziness. Sometimes it has just been because of significant levels of gospel progress. (I wonder if one of the reasons white western middle class Christians might feel uncomfortable about postmill'ism is because we carry a lot of guilt about not being persecuted and fear, perhaps correctly, that this might be because we aren't being that faithful)
D. Once we’ve allowed for A-C, and if we think that the bible does predict a time when the gospel will have made such significant progress across the whole world that it can be said to have ‘conquered’, or the kingdom can be said to be the largest of all the kingdoms in the world, then it follows that persecution would be strikingly rare in some parts of the world at that time.
Or, put it another way. I imagine that after his conversion, there was a significant reduction in the persecution of Christians who (so to speak) lived on the same street as Saul of Tarsus. All postmillenialism is doing is saying that what God did to Saul of Tarsus' neighbourhood he is progressively doing (not necessarily in a linear fashion) throughout the world across history.
Sometime soon I'll blog some more about this, perhaps especially about the nature of the cross-shaped Christian life and how this is in no way incompatible with an optimistic eschatology.
The obvious thing to say upfront is that Christians will always suffer until the second coming (in their struggle against sin, in their coping with a dying and decaying body, in their having to set aside their own interests to serve and honour others etc.). But should all Christians at all times in history expect to experience suffering of the persecution variety? Here are my initial problems with such a view;
A. It hasn’t been true for all Christians throughout every period of history.
B. It isn’t true for all Christians throughout the world now.
C. A and B haven't always been because of unfaithfulness/compromise/laziness. Sometimes it has just been because of significant levels of gospel progress. (I wonder if one of the reasons white western middle class Christians might feel uncomfortable about postmill'ism is because we carry a lot of guilt about not being persecuted and fear, perhaps correctly, that this might be because we aren't being that faithful)
D. Once we’ve allowed for A-C, and if we think that the bible does predict a time when the gospel will have made such significant progress across the whole world that it can be said to have ‘conquered’, or the kingdom can be said to be the largest of all the kingdoms in the world, then it follows that persecution would be strikingly rare in some parts of the world at that time.
Or, put it another way. I imagine that after his conversion, there was a significant reduction in the persecution of Christians who (so to speak) lived on the same street as Saul of Tarsus. All postmillenialism is doing is saying that what God did to Saul of Tarsus' neighbourhood he is progressively doing (not necessarily in a linear fashion) throughout the world across history.
Sometime soon I'll blog some more about this, perhaps especially about the nature of the cross-shaped Christian life and how this is in no way incompatible with an optimistic eschatology.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Gospel Optimism 8: The Covenant with Abraham
We read Genesis 22:15-24 in chapel today. Here's the first few verses (emphasis mine)
And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."
And I thought of 1 Corinthians 15:22-25 (again, emphasis mine)
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Christ, the offspring of Abraham, will possess the gate of his enemies - he will subdue them all, such that when he returns it will be to a conquered earth (with all the nations of the earth blessed under his rule) with only death left to deal with. This 'last enemy' is then swallowed up in victory.
And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."
And I thought of 1 Corinthians 15:22-25 (again, emphasis mine)
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Christ, the offspring of Abraham, will possess the gate of his enemies - he will subdue them all, such that when he returns it will be to a conquered earth (with all the nations of the earth blessed under his rule) with only death left to deal with. This 'last enemy' is then swallowed up in victory.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Gospel Optimism 3
The following are taken from Spurgeon’s sermon on Luke 1:46 (“My soul doth magnify the Lord.”). Spurgeon is arguing that part of magnifying God is “to think great things” of him.
- The first two quotes are about gospel optimism at the individual level:
“Never say, “It is of no use inducing such a man to attend the means of grace. He is a blaspheming wretch. All that he would do if he heard a sermon would be to make sport of it for next week”…Such unbelieving talk is making little of God. Is it not so? Is it not dishonouring God to think that His gospel cannot reach the most depraved hearts?”
“Believe great things of God. I can honestly say this – that since God saved me I never doubted His power to save anybody.”
- Then Spurgeon turns his eye to the global picture, and to eschatological optimism:
“Believe great things of Him. Believe that China can be made into a province of the celestial Kingdom. Believe that India will cast her riches as Jesus’ feet. Believe that the round world will yet be a pearl on Christ’s finger-ring. Do not go in for the dispiriting, despairing, unmanly, un-Christly ideas of those who say “The world is not to be converted. It is a poor wreck that will go to pieces, and we are to fish off here and there one from the water-logged hulk.” Brethren, never believe that we are to stand by and see the eternal defeat of God.”
- and, in a rhetorical flourish that is typical of the great preacher there's even stronger stuff:
“It shall never be said that God could not save the world by the preaching of the gospel, and by the work of the Holy Spirit and therefore must needs bring in the advent of the Lord to do it. I believe in the coming of the Lord, but , blessed be his name, I believe also that the battle which he has begun in the Spirit He will fight out in the old style, and finish with a victory in the very manner in which He opened the conflict. It pleases Him by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe , and it will please him to continue to do so till the whole round earth shall ring with the hallelujahs of praise to the grace of God…”
I find all that both challenging and enchanting.
All from Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Keynote of a choice Sonnet,” pp.610-615 in The Treasury of the New Testament Volume 1, (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1962), 614.
- The first two quotes are about gospel optimism at the individual level:
“Never say, “It is of no use inducing such a man to attend the means of grace. He is a blaspheming wretch. All that he would do if he heard a sermon would be to make sport of it for next week”…Such unbelieving talk is making little of God. Is it not so? Is it not dishonouring God to think that His gospel cannot reach the most depraved hearts?”
“Believe great things of God. I can honestly say this – that since God saved me I never doubted His power to save anybody.”
- Then Spurgeon turns his eye to the global picture, and to eschatological optimism:
“Believe great things of Him. Believe that China can be made into a province of the celestial Kingdom. Believe that India will cast her riches as Jesus’ feet. Believe that the round world will yet be a pearl on Christ’s finger-ring. Do not go in for the dispiriting, despairing, unmanly, un-Christly ideas of those who say “The world is not to be converted. It is a poor wreck that will go to pieces, and we are to fish off here and there one from the water-logged hulk.” Brethren, never believe that we are to stand by and see the eternal defeat of God.”
- and, in a rhetorical flourish that is typical of the great preacher there's even stronger stuff:
“It shall never be said that God could not save the world by the preaching of the gospel, and by the work of the Holy Spirit and therefore must needs bring in the advent of the Lord to do it. I believe in the coming of the Lord, but , blessed be his name, I believe also that the battle which he has begun in the Spirit He will fight out in the old style, and finish with a victory in the very manner in which He opened the conflict. It pleases Him by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe , and it will please him to continue to do so till the whole round earth shall ring with the hallelujahs of praise to the grace of God…”
I find all that both challenging and enchanting.
All from Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Keynote of a choice Sonnet,” pp.610-615 in The Treasury of the New Testament Volume 1, (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1962), 614.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Postmillenialism and 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff.
As stated in the previous post, I think I am becoming a postmillennialist.
This is a big thing for someone like me who, being brought up in the Brethren Church, only 7 years ago was some sort of dispensational premillennialist. Moving to amillennialism was paradigm-shifting enough and yet, I think, set me on a trajectory that seems now to be heading towards postmillennialism (many of the reasons that persuaded or confirmed me in becoming an ‘a’, when combined with a biblical expectation of gospel progress, more readily fit with being a ‘postie’ - e.g. the Church as the New Israel, the importance and transformation of this creation, the present reign of Christ from heaven through the gospel). In particular, looking at Mark 4, Daniel 2, Psalm 2 & 110 with fresh eyes has been illuminating.
However, last night we had a bible study on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11. On the interpretation given during the study, this passage is a ‘problem text' for postmillennialism. Knowing that no doubt postmillennialists have thought about these verses before, and come up with some answers, I thought I’d throw the problems/questions out into the blogosphere and see what comes back (not that somehow the answers given will 'settle' the whole question for me - the point is to aid ongoing thinking and discussion).
1. Several features of the text seem to contain an expectation of the imminent return of Christ. In particular 4:15, 5:4-10.
2. Whilst 1. could be a problem for an ‘a’ position too, it could be argued that it can be more readily reconciled with a position which says ‘Christ could return at any time, all that has to happen is for the kingdom to stretch into all nations’ than with a position which says ‘Christ will return after his kingdom has dominated the globe'.
3. This seems especially to be the case for those verses in 5 where Paul seems to be using the return of Christ like a thief as an incentive to faithful gospel living for the Thessalonian church (would this make sense if Paul believed there really was no way the resurrection day would come during their lifetime? Yes, this gives us problems in an ‘a’ position too in some respects, but the problems ‘seem’ bigger for a ‘postie’).
4. If these verses in 5 refer to Jesus’ ‘coming’ in AD70 (which surely is a possibility), has Paul presumably changed subject from the end of 4? Why the sudden change in subject? Or would a postie position somehow commit us to seeing the the events described in 4:13-18 as about AD70 too (which seems more difficult to my mind)?
5. Similarly, if these verses in 5. refer to Jesus’ coming in AD70 to judge Jerusalem, why does this have the implications it does for the Thessalonians (such that they wouldn't want to be caught unawares by that coming?)? Surely it makes more ‘natural’ (warning, exegetical presumption about the natural reading of this text) sense for the coming in 5:2 to be the day when the Thessalonians will escape wrath and obtain salvation?
NB. I'm already thoroughly unconvinced by the premillennial/'rapture'/dispensational reading(s) of this text that I've heard, so we don't need to go there.
This is a big thing for someone like me who, being brought up in the Brethren Church, only 7 years ago was some sort of dispensational premillennialist. Moving to amillennialism was paradigm-shifting enough and yet, I think, set me on a trajectory that seems now to be heading towards postmillennialism (many of the reasons that persuaded or confirmed me in becoming an ‘a’, when combined with a biblical expectation of gospel progress, more readily fit with being a ‘postie’ - e.g. the Church as the New Israel, the importance and transformation of this creation, the present reign of Christ from heaven through the gospel). In particular, looking at Mark 4, Daniel 2, Psalm 2 & 110 with fresh eyes has been illuminating.
However, last night we had a bible study on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11. On the interpretation given during the study, this passage is a ‘problem text' for postmillennialism. Knowing that no doubt postmillennialists have thought about these verses before, and come up with some answers, I thought I’d throw the problems/questions out into the blogosphere and see what comes back (not that somehow the answers given will 'settle' the whole question for me - the point is to aid ongoing thinking and discussion).
1. Several features of the text seem to contain an expectation of the imminent return of Christ. In particular 4:15, 5:4-10.
2. Whilst 1. could be a problem for an ‘a’ position too, it could be argued that it can be more readily reconciled with a position which says ‘Christ could return at any time, all that has to happen is for the kingdom to stretch into all nations’ than with a position which says ‘Christ will return after his kingdom has dominated the globe'.
3. This seems especially to be the case for those verses in 5 where Paul seems to be using the return of Christ like a thief as an incentive to faithful gospel living for the Thessalonian church (would this make sense if Paul believed there really was no way the resurrection day would come during their lifetime? Yes, this gives us problems in an ‘a’ position too in some respects, but the problems ‘seem’ bigger for a ‘postie’).
4. If these verses in 5 refer to Jesus’ ‘coming’ in AD70 (which surely is a possibility), has Paul presumably changed subject from the end of 4? Why the sudden change in subject? Or would a postie position somehow commit us to seeing the the events described in 4:13-18 as about AD70 too (which seems more difficult to my mind)?
5. Similarly, if these verses in 5. refer to Jesus’ coming in AD70 to judge Jerusalem, why does this have the implications it does for the Thessalonians (such that they wouldn't want to be caught unawares by that coming?)? Surely it makes more ‘natural’ (warning, exegetical presumption about the natural reading of this text) sense for the coming in 5:2 to be the day when the Thessalonians will escape wrath and obtain salvation?
NB. I'm already thoroughly unconvinced by the premillennial/'rapture'/dispensational reading(s) of this text that I've heard, so we don't need to go there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
