Continuing the back and forth about postmillennialism I was having with some friends, and some challenges they presented, I wanted to pass on this second exchange. Identifiers are left out because the respondent didn’t know at the time of writing that he was going to be on camera, and might have polished arguments
Hey Tim,
I feel like there are two distinct issues being addressed here.
1) First, is the degree to which the gospel transforms an individual; and
2) Second, is the number of individuals in a society whom the gospel transforms.
To me, the first one is largely dependent on the individual’s cooperation with the Holy Spirit in the sanctification process. For many Christians, that process is stunted, or it plateaus. So even on an individual level, the gospel does not possess an innate ability to transform to the ideal degree, no matter how long a person lives. Nor will anyone have been perfected by it prior to their death. Does this fact cast a disparaging light on the efficacy of the gospel? No. But it does inform us that we should be careful concerning what powers with which we imbue the gospel message.
The second issue above, is instrumentally dependent on God’s sovereign election, and subordinately dependent on evangelistic endeavor. To me, it seems like the postmil’s ascription of the gospel with the ability to ultimately dominate the globe and its culture runs contrary to God’s instrumental cause of election. In other words, salvation does not depend on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Rom. 9:16). This does not negate God’s command for us to preach the gospel; it merely relegates the outcome of our preaching, solely to God. I believe that Postmillennialism errs by presuming an outcome that only God can decide and define. In other words, election trumps any assumed, innate power of the gospel to dominate the world.
Postmils seem to follow in the footsteps of the common theological error, that God (or the gospel) would be most glorified if he saved everyone. In other words, if he can save (i.e. elect) everyone, then he is morally obligated to do so. But God, in his wisdom, does not toe our presumptive, theological lines. Rather, he creates a world in which he is obligated to save no one, yet graciously chooses to save some. And this is how he maximizes his glory (not the gospel’s glory). Because it’s not ultimately about the gospel’s glory (power, extent, influence, etc.). It’s about God’s glory. And he is apparently most glorified by not saving the maximum number of people possible. (See Romans 9:22-23).
And how are we to determine what constitutes a gospel that is gloriously powerful and effective? How do we measure that? Is it “glorious” if it can transform the world in 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years?
To some, a 10,000-year-process would indicate a very weak and ineffective gospel, given a God who is capable of saving multitudes of people at a time, and even transforming whole continents, as he has historically done. And is transforming the whole world in a dominating manner, even a biblical category? Truly, “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Hab. 2:14), but there is no time stamp on that. Most would place that post-2nd Coming.
From a Reformed perspective, we do not have the prerogative to define what “gospel success” is, or looks like. From one vantage point, the gospel has utterly failed to achieve dominance, even though it’s had 2,000 years to do so, and during which, untold numbers of generations, nations, and people groups have not been saved or transformed by it. So from that perspective, the gospel’s pace of progress has been neither rapid nor glorious. God is not constrained by time, nor must he wait thousands of years (or tens of thousands of years) for human effort to accomplish some impressive degree of gospel success. Biblically, he is waiting for “the full number of Gentiles to come in” (Rom. 11:25). Do we really have the prerogative to quantify that? Or to even assume that this implies a majority of the human population? There is nothing in Jesus’ teaching to warrant that.
We must be clear on what the Bible does, and does not say. It says that the people of Christ are from every tribe, tongue, and nation without DISTINCTION. It does NOT say that the people of Christ are from every tribe, tongue, and nation without EXCEPTION. This distinction eliminates any scriptural necessity for spiritual or cultural dominance. Psalm 110 does not include any time markers to enable us to predict the degree to which the world will be Christianized by the Lord’s return. It merely says that by the time he returns, he will have put every enemy under his feet. That might happen steadily throughout time, or cataclysmically at the very end. Or both. There is no logical necessity to conclude any degree to which the world is Christianized at the time of his return. If there was only one believer left alive at the 2nd Coming, Jesus could still put all his enemies under his feet at that time.
Anyway, these are some thoughts I’ve been wanting to put down into words for your consideration. I wish you all a blessed and joyful Christmas! 🙂
Amillennial Amigo
My Response
Hey fellas,
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! I’m not sure if you other two are getting anything out of this, but we are having a grand ole’ time, so I’m just going to keep hitting the “Reply All” button. Text STOP to opt out.
Sometimes I feel awkward talking so much about eschatology. Kind of like a man who had a sudden and inexplicable mid-life fascination with astronomy. Is it a hobby? A strange obsession? From whence comes this fanaticism? I don’t want to be Chesterton’s definition of a fanatic, “one who can’t change the subject and won’t change his mind.” So let me start off by talking about both the strength of my commitment to my eschatology and the nature of that commitment. Then I want to identify the two conversations – or at least two levels of conversations- that are overlapping each other, as I think this is necessary to any conversation going forward.
First, the certainty issue. As Christians, there are levels of certainty we have about things God reveals. Topping the list is that God exists, Jesus Christ is Lord, was crucified, risen and is sitting at the right hand of God. In these truths we have a gritty, adamantine, gun-to-the-head kind of certainty. We trust in and rely on it as the spiritual equivalent of the law of gravity or thermodynamics. Not only do we behold the truth itself, but on them we build our worlds. And the real boon of spiritual certainty is that it is more real than physical certainty, even more than the most well-honed physical principles. Other truths in the Bible fall into this category, but those mentioned are on top – a point I know we can agree on.
Then there are lesser levels of certainty we have concerning doctrines where the edges are a bit blurred. Our allegiances to these are not welded in steel like the top shelf kind, but glued and screwed, or perhaps zip tied together. Eschatology is one of these “second-tier certainties” – none of us has the same certainty in this study as we do the Lordship of Christ, for example. Cosmology has similar second-tier certainties, such as dark matter and energy, that lack the rigorous experimental verification, but the math just works so dang well that most physicists presume they are true. And so for our sojourn on Earth we follow unwaveringly the clear light of Jesus Christ knowing that one day we will see all things face to face, but for now must see through a glass dimly, or a matter darkly, if you will.
When the second tier certainties are elevated to prime importance, the pile of evidence cannot support the weighty conclusions each system boasts and results in division at best, heresy at worst, and both at worstiest. To put a bow on these leading comments, I am certain Jesus is Lord and Christ; I may be wrong that he will tarry until the world is Christianized. And I would be happily caught up next to my pre- and amillennial hombres to marvel at my Lord if this were the case.
The second tier certainty of my eschatology must be acknowledged so that my intentions, goals… and beefs with others’ eschatological presumptions can be seen clearly. Which leads to the type of commitment I have to postmil. I am not interested in turning everyone in my church to postmil. To be quite honest, I don’t care about people’s “eschatological orientation”; I care how they live. I care if they fight. In other words, I am less certain of my eschatological conclusions than I am convinced of its importance.
Next, about the two conversations. Much of the conversations we have and the objections raised come from a mix of legit, textual objections, and it is important to cross swords and challenge each other in this way. But I find that many more objections come from the lore and legend of the eschatology, the folk tale fears of what people have learned by hearsay from the fishmonger’s wives down at the dock. Often we are not dealing with the well-chiseled points of opposing views, but the collected wisps of many uninformed opinions that mash together to make a sort of gray lint, the kind you would find in the dryer filter.
We see the same phenomena in the sciences. There is science, and there is “media-science”. Scientists understand the deep footings of their study, the broad shoulders of giants they stand upon, and the limits of their findings. And then there is the media outlet that takes those findings, filters them through the worldview of its chief science correspondent, a 23 year-old astrologist named Shasta, who minored in zoology at community college. Already unrecognizable from its conclusions, the spun results are then circulated on social media, where it is mixed with the imagination and cut with collective fears.
We need to be aware there are two conversations that are going on and be able to divide what are the well formed eschatological positions from what has been whipped up by the layman who insists on misreading the data and makes haste to generalize. And then realize that the largest group of people are the onlookers who may know very little of what is going on, though have honest hearts and need things gently and patiently explained. I don’t mean to sound arrogant talking like this, but this has been my overwhelming experience talking to other Christians on this topic.
Above I mentioned my beefs with other eschatological positions. Let me briefly explain what I mean. The epicenter of my irk does not come from people disagreeing with this or that eschatology, but from the apathy to which those eschatologies may lead. I do want to make clear that I do not think premil, amil, or dispensational eschatologies lead to apathy per se, only that there is a much straighter line towards apathy in those others than in postmil; apathy is right off the highway.
To say it another way, a postmil believer cannot maintain his postmil beliefs and not engage in culture wars, society transformation, mission work, etc, and seeing all of these as out workings as the kingdom of God inevitably rippling out in concentric circles. All other three can maintain their eschatological beliefs and not engage. It is quite possible that the end of the world is a disastrous pig’s breakfast of the kind that is currently brewing. The only thing required of you is to do nothing. There are brave missionaries on the fringes wrangling in the last of the Gentiles on your behalf. No imperative exists for John Q Christian to make inroads towards Christ being magnified in his city in order for his eschatological end to come about. Indeed, he has been told the best evidence that the Second Advent is near is when his city removes the nativity scene from the civic center lawn and the drag queens recite slam poetry for the kindergarteners at the library.
Now I know that if Christians “did nothing” because of their belief in the imminent eschaton, this would be disobedient; no preacher worth his salt would encourage his congregation in this. Please understand my point here: I am not saying these other eschatological positions equals despair and apathy. All I am saying is that one’s presumption of the End cannot not affect their current expectations and actions. If one expects a fulminant evil to erupt in every institution, and that evil seems to be festering currently, the conclusion is not hard to reach.
And here is where, much of what we are dealing with is the “media-science” of eschatology. Conclusions have been drawn about the meaning of the findings and those conclusions spread the way much of errant scientific conclusions spread – on Facebook, on poorly managed websites, on YouTube shorts filmed on dashcams. People must be taught that even if they sincerely believe the end is near, which I have no problem with, that they do not conclude from this that they are to remove their hands from the cultural plowshare. Both Aragorn and Denethor thought the end was near when Sauron’s armies battered the gate; one was battle ready, the other craven.
This is my primary goal in these conversations with anyone – to incite others to a zeal for Christ to be acknowledged as King. I do not care one cat’s laugh if this person is amil, premil or jelly-of-the-month-mil. Nothing about the return of Christ in six months means one cannot run for state office, start a classical Christian school, or look to make godly social change in their community. Nothing. It does not logically follow. It does, however, logically follow that these efforts will fail to achieve the desired effect of being won for Christ. And it must be acknowledged this belief can’t not have an effect on the attitudes of the warriors one way or another. Eschatology is a belief. Beliefs inspire actions. Those actions are measurable. So be amil. Be premil. Heck, even be dispensational. Live postmil.
I hope that clarifies my loyalties, which is to King and conversation, and my warnings of the attitudes and muddled thinking that can snag the toes. Next, I want to address your points in particular.
I want to respond to your comments on the expectation of the gospel in our lives as individuals, and then as those individuals do or do not create some synergistic effect resulting in a widespread gospel verdancy. You said for many Christians the gospel growth in their lives (sanctification), becomes stunted or plateaus. I would agree this is an observable reality generally in people’s lives. The gospel does transform an individual to “a degree”. If by this you mean we are not made perfect on this side of heaven, I heartily agree. Perhaps this apprehension comes from your experiences as a counselor and the difficulties working with the soul; it is a most brittle organ. But you say this with a confidence that I cannot find anywhere backed with scripture. Is this just anecdotal? I get that it can be disparaging, and I even look in my own life and see how my sourpuss soul rejects growth and is slow to praise God. So I don’t mean to sound naïve and plucky. I just question if that is the best expectation to carry and if we are meant to burn with a brighter hope.
Hauling in God’s sovereignty into the discussion – His unchallenged ability to do absolutely anything He wants – is no kind of argument against Him Christianizing the world, if that is what He wants to do. I understand that I am making a presumption that more will be saved, perhaps, but I would point out that there is an equal and opposite assumption that you brought in yourself when you presume the gospel can only have a certain, limited effect.
And to my knowledge I don’t know if anyone is making the argument that a saved person is worth two glory-points for God and a hellbound only one glory-point. How could anyone know that? What is the “full number of Gentiles”? I do not know, but is it too presumptuous to say “more than the stars in the sky”? Do we have any other Biblical promise similar where God plans to bring in a whole group of people? Yup. And you referenced it – all Israel will be saved. How many is that? Is it those of the bloodline of Abraham? Orthodox Jews only? Anyone who wears Levi jeans? We can’t see into that promise, but only stand on the outside and trust that God knows how he is going to split the hairs. But the point is, this is the same kind of mass salvation and transformation (not 100%! – that is more folklore) the postmil view embraces.
I don’t understand the point that we don’t know what gospel success looks like. The classic postil response, I believe, would be that success will look like the knowledge of the Lord covering the earth as the waters cover the sea; it will look like the Lord having made all his enemies his footstool; it will look like all the nations being baptized. The extent and fulfillment of these, as you know, is seen to be very different for each eschatological position, but that would be the postmil presumption. We do not determine what we believe about the Bible from what we see in our experience, even if our experience is very gloomy. After the careful work of hermeneutics is done, we believe what the Bible says and then adjust our expectations accordingly.
Assigning adjectives to the gospel because it hasn’t yet transformed the entire world is arbitrary. A 10,000 year process would indicate a “weak” and “ineffective” process? Sez who? By what standard? And why should I care that the transformation of the world is not happening according to how Reverend Slick Steve’s World Remediation Timeline says it would if postmil were true? Are we falling behind? Christianity has influenced every area of human endeavor…and in only two thousand years! Both sides can use the time thing on their marketing brochures. Ultimately, though, it is a non-starter for substantial argument. There are no “time markers” on the fulfillment of Psalm 110, you say. Very well, I agree with you. He can take as long as He pleases. To say that God would have done things quickly or the most efficient way according to our view is also a non-starter. While we are at it, we might as well ask why Tolkien didn’t just have the Eagles fly Frodo to Mount Doom?
As for transforming the earth “in a dominating manner”, and that not being a biblical category, this is the folk lore stuff I am talking about. Not sure where this is coming from except from the presumptions of people who fundamentally misunderstand the postmil vision (which may include some “postmil” adherents, unfortunately). No one is advocating for some kind of Maccabean revolt and holding up in Idaho to start the Millennial Reich. It’s a red herring. We are to take dominion, not dominate; this is not a subtle difference, each having very different means and ends of authority. One is granted authority meekly assumed; the other is taking what is not one’s own. It is the difference between Aragorn and Sauron.
In closing, I want to ask some questions. Premils can go sour by throwing their hands up off the plow and waiting in their bunkers with a seven year supply of beans. Postmils can over realize the eschaton and go full preterist, or go full hog social gospel. In what way can amils go rogue? As all positions have an inherent flaw, what would you say is the inherent danger in that view? Secondly, my understanding of amil is essentially the parable of the wheat and tares – both good and evil will grow until the Lord comes to harvest, though there will be a final evil push. If this is true, it must also be true that you can’t know where we are at in that process (ie: are both good and evil 50% complete at this time? 99%?). Is it possible that we are only at, say 10%? If you knew that for certain, would it change the way you act/live/preach? Would it change your expectations of the extent of the growth of the kingdom?
Ok, that’s all for now.
Happy New Year!
Tim
Conclusion
I cannot praise enough the gentlemen in this conversation and how they have conducted themselves with integrity, poise and good humor. This conversation is a very important one and needs to be happening more, and my intention for posting is an an example of a hardy intramural wrestling match.
Thought Butter 