Daniel 2 & 7
Daniel 2 & 7 are very important chapters in the eschatology debate. They are picked up by our Lord in his kingdom parables in Matthew 13. These chapters in Daniel are fulfilled in the New Testament age. The Prophet Daniel focuses on two aspects of God’s kingdom: a) The gradual growth of the Kingdom and b) the starting point of the kingdom, which is when Christ is ascended into Heaven. Daniel 7 says that the Son of Man (a common Messianic Title) comes to (or goes up to) the Ancient of Days. He ascends into the Right Hand of the Father. The promise of Daniel is that when the King ascends into Heaven, when all authority is given unto Him in heaven and in earth, then the Kingdom will begin its gradual growth. Jesus picks up this theme when he says that the kingdom is like a seed, which is planted and eventually covers the whole earth.
In Daniel 2, Daniel interprets King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. “King Nebuchadnezzar saw a vision of a great image with a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and legs partly of iron and partly of clay” (Dn. 2:32-33). This great image was destroyed by a stone, cut without hands, which subsequently grew into a great mountain that filled the earth. Daniel explained the meaning of the dream to Nebuchadnezzar:
Four powerful kingdoms — the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman — would dominate the history of the world until the God of heaven Himself sets up a new kingdom that will never be destroyed (Dan 2:36-45).[1]
We see in Daniel that this kingdom is set up in the days of the Roman Empire (RS). The logical conclusion here is that when Christ ascended unto the right of the Father, the kingdom of God began its work of growing. Postmillennialist say that the seed is the kingdom and that the seed of the kingdom was sown in the Ascension of Christ and it will only stop growing in influence when Christ deems the work done.[2]
Psalm 110
Psalm 110 is the most often quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament. The text says: “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make all your enemies a footstool.” This passage provides the foundation for the ascension and present reign of Christ as the “great Priest-King.”[3] For our purposes, Psalm 110 proves that Christ can be reigning without being physically present on earth. Psalm 110 tells us that the Lord is seated with Yahweh. This proves a) that Christ Jesus is God and b) that Christ Jesus is not on earth, but seated at the right hand of the Father. Premillennialists believe that for Christ to rule over His enemies, He must come physically to earth and usher the millennium in the future. This passage says that the Lord is conquering His enemies not from earth, but from heaven. Christ begins His work of conquering His enemies and bringing them into submission not in a distant future, but when He ascended. The Kingdom began in the First Coming of Christ in the first century.
There are many New Testament passages that prove the Postmillennial hope, but two passages come to mind as crucial in seeing the advance of the Kingdom of God on earth.
Matthew 28:18-20
Everyone is familiar with the Great Commission. But what are its implications? Again, Postmillennialism says that the promises of God will be fulfilled in history because it only makes sense if it is fulfilled in history. The text says “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…” Here in this passage we see the “instrumental means by which Christ will fulfill all of the great covenant promises of the Old Testament.”[4] This is the means by which the kingdom of God is established on earth. The kingdom will grow and be victorious through discipling all nations. The discipling happens when we baptize people in the Triune Name and then when we teach them to observe the commandments of God. You may even see here one of many reasons Reformed people baptize infants. The order is we baptize first and then we teach them the commandments.
“Israel was given the responsibility of being the mediator of God’s blessing to all nations in the Old Testament, but she failed.”[5] Christ has now been given authority in heaven and on earth and through His power by the work of His people, the Church will not fail. As Mathison concludes, “With the power and authority of Christ the King behind the command, and with the outcome resting in His hands, ultimate failure is not possible.”[6]
The Book of Acts is the story of Postmillennialism. The Spirit pours His power upon the early church for the purpose of going to the ends of the earth. Acts is the beginning of the agenda of the church. In other words, Acts is the greatest of all conspiracy theories. It begins with humble disciples passing on the faith to other disciples; multiplying continually their numbers.
Acts 13:46-47
Paul and Barnabas begin speaking boldly the gospel indicating that there is a shift in redemptive history. They are now a light unto the Gentiles and verse 47 says that “they should being salvation to the end of the earth.” This is a quotation of the Servant songs of Isaiah. This is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Jesus is ascended and now He reigns from heaven and making the enemies of the Gospel on earth a footstool. The Apostolic goal and the goal of the Church is to evangelize the nations; to be a light unto the Gentiles “for the purpose of bringing the covenant blessings of salvation to all the families of the earth.”[7]
[1] Ralph Smith. The Covenantal Kingdom.
[2] Dispensationalists will attempt to insert a gap of 2,000 years here. According to Ralph Smith, this is “an imposition upon the text that is contrary to its plain, normal, literal meaning.”
[3] Mathison, pg. 80.
[4] Mathison, pg. 116.
[5] Ibid. 116.
[6] Ibid. 116.
[7] Ibid. 119.
Prayer: Our Lord Christ, in You are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. We pray that the word of Christ would dwell in us richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in our hearts to God. For this is our prayer, O Lord. Amen.
Sermon: People of God, Ecclesiastes is an apologetic against nihilism and fatalism. Ecclesiastes is not about the meaninglessness of life, it’s about trusting God to control what we cannot. The preacher says life is vapor, because we are not called to be in control of our lives, we are called to live faithfully and place our cares on the Faithful One.
In our passage this morning, Solomon speaks much about wisdom and knowledge. He has gained wisdom both by prudent men and foolish men; the slothful and the diligent.[1] Solomon devotes himself[2] to search and explore wisely all things done under heaven. If there is anyone who can search things out, it is Solomon. He has received wisdom not only from man, but as a gift from God. This is a kingly wisdom. He searches out the earth. He seeks all things that are under heaven and he concludes that it is an unhappy business that God has given to keep us occupied. Read the rest of this entry »
Gary North has always fascinated me. His writing style has influenced me greatly. Before I read Gary, I cared little about footnotes. After I read Gary, a typical 10 page paper will have an average of 3 footnotes per page. A simple blog post I write greater than 5 paragraphs will also have a several footnotes. I simply love taking the reader back to original sources. Gary is a master at that.
In his latest article, he writes about his experiences meeting celebrities. For Gary and many of us, we will probably meet 3-5 celebrities in a lifetime. For young theologians like myself, we tend to count our favorite scholars as our own group of celebrities. However one defines celebrity, Gary is masterful at giving us some unique advice on what to say to celebrities.
Coming soon…
Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, Greg L. Bahnsen
http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5686&HS=11
Hardback, 289 pages
LONDON – The surviving pages of the world’s oldest Christian Bible have been reunited — digitally. The early work known as the Codex Sinaiticus has been housed in four separate locations across the world for more than 150 years. But starting Monday, it became available for perusal on the Web at http://www.codexsinaiticus.org so scholars and other readers can get a closer look at what the British Library calls a “unique treasure.”
Note: This was my pastoral prayer for July 5th.
Pastoral Prayer:
I waited patiently for the Lord;
he inclined to me and heard my cry.
Our Gracious, Merciful and Glorious God: Father, Son and Spirit. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness of it. All Glory belongs to You in heaven and on earth. We praise you for your wondrous deeds. For the salvation You have granted unto us in Christ Jesus our Lord.
We delight in the goodness of Your provision. Apart from You we would be lost and purposeless beings, but with You there is fullness of joy. Your Kingdom, O Lord is an everlasting kingdom. It is a kingdom of glory and victory. May we have faith to see Your kingdom come in earth as it is in heaven.
We delight in this period of history. We celebrate the good gifts that You have given unto this nation. May we acknowledge your mercies to these United States. We thank you for the beginning of this nation, its Christian legacy that has long been forgotten in this day. Yet we praise you for preserving our liberties to adore you Father, Son and Spirit. And we pray that you would bring liberty to other nations around the world. May we remember that we are not at liberty to forsake Your word, but we are liberty to live by Your Word.
O Lord, despite the atrocities committed by this nation, in particular towards the unborn, we pray that You would heal this land. Heal us from elevating a god of our imagination, instead of elevating the God of Scriptures. Forgive us for empty rhetoric. Forgive us for equating love for God to love of a party. Forgive us for equating this country’s agenda with the kingdom’s agenda. Lord, we know that we are far from pursuing the kingdom’s agenda in this nation.
Yet, we pray that you restore this land. Turn President Obama’s heart unto You for you tell us that You can turn the hearts of rulers.
Rule in the hearts of our leaders. May they rest in You even when it is not popular or convenient. May they lose their jobs for Your sake if necessary, so You may be exalted above their careers and reputation.
Take us from a nation of idolaters to a nation of worshipers.
Do not forsake us, O Lord, but be with us. Though we have a glorious past, we do not want to look to the past, but we want to look to the future. We cannot re-live the past, but we can seek your guidance for the future.
We ask that Your justice would prevail. Do not forsake us, O Lord for we Your people cry for the manifestation of Your Mighty Hand.
Through Your beloved Son, will you call us unto Yourself and will you call to affirm that the prayer you taught your disciples saying: Our Father…
Note: This is part of a weekly note sent to members of Providence Church.
Richard Dawkins–the militant anti-christian atheist–declared that he is starting a summer retreat. What will they learn at this retreat? They will mix tug of war with philosophical arguments against the existence of God, scientific proof that evolutionary theory is valid, and of course, instead of the traditional kumbaya melody, these little, open-minded children and teenagers will be dancing to the tune of John Lennon’s atheistic utopia Imagine. This reveals a sort of change in tactic for the atheists; a return perhaps to their Stalinist and dictatorial history when evil triumphed by polluting the minds of the children. Atheists thrive in demonizing the Christian faith for its crusades and violent ecclesiastical history, but the reality is that ultimately it is the atheistic impulse that leads to violence and death. Think about it. In what worldview can you affirm that life begins at conception or that man bears the image of His Creator? Certainly not atheism. Atheism teaches that life bears no ultimate meaning. This is all there is. At least Dawkins now realizes that education begins at the early stages of life. But what hope can he offer these impressionable little ones? This is probably Dawkins’ attempt to leave a legacy; ultimately, a legacy of hate and meaninglessness.
On the other hand, blessed are we who teach our little ones to awake with the sounds of the gospel and to end the day with the sounds of the gospel. May our little ones grow up with the full assurance that life is full of meaning for those who trust in Yahweh.
On today’s show, I focused mostly on Sarah Palin’s resignation and the influence of neo-conservatism in destroying the Republican Party.
SHOW AUDIO. Leave a comment.
Mr. Goldberg wrote this article hours before Palin’s resignation speech. Here is concluding paragraph:
So here’s my advice. Stay home and do your job and your homework. You’ll still be a national figure come the primaries. But if you can’t surprise your detractors with your grasp of policy when you re-emerge on the national stage, you won’t win the nomination. More important, you won’t deserve to.
Links:
Joe Torres and his dog Van Til
Dialogue with an Atheist by Joe Torres
At 12 Central/1Eastern, I will be interviewing Joe Torres on presuppositional apologeticsat Trinity Talk.
Joe summarizes our interview as follows:
On Thursday, July 2nd, I’ll be discussing the topic of presuppositional apologetics on Trinity Talk with Uri and Jarrod.
Uri and I have known each other for several years now. We’ve worked together and attended seminary together. Now he’s a pastor, and i’m a professor. We have our theological disagreements, but we both love discussing them as iron sharpens iron.
In the interview we’ll be talking about something that’s view close to our hearts, a robust, powerful, and God-glorifying way of defending the faith. Here’s a sample of the kind of questions we’ll discuss:
a) What is apologetics?
b) What is presuppositional apologetics?
c) How does presuppositionalism differ with other apologetic positions?
d) How does a presuppositional apologetics answer charges from atheism?
First, let us look at Creation.
What is the purpose of creation? According to Genesis 1, the purpose of the creation is two-fold: a) First, God creates man to have dominion over the earth and b) and to take delight in His creation (Gen. 1:31). In Genesis 1:31, God says that His work is very good.
We read also in Genesis that this world that God created is not in and of itself bad. It cannot be bad because nothing God created was originally bad. It was all very good. Postmillennialists affirm that God created an essentially good creation and that man’s sin marred creation. However, we do not believe that cursing the earth is part of God’s continual purposes for this world. He cursed the world through Adam, so too; we believe that He will bless the world through the Second Adam.
In fact, God gives us a promise in Genesis 3. In verse 15 He says that someone will crush the head of the Serpent. It is in this promise that we begin to see God’s purposes for Redemptive History. In Genesis we see the great distinction between Sin and Redemption. Sin affects more than the soul of man, it affects his surrounding. The action of the First Adam brought a curse to Adam’s spirit (he was separated from communion with God) and to Adam’ surrounding. The text says that there shall be conflict between husband and wife. Sin causes relational problems. Redemption, on the other hand, also affects more than the soul. It affects the person’s surrounding. If someone is redeemed, not only is his soul made new, but his surroundings are made new. Redemption affects the way we live and think. The Bible tells us that all things are made new. The individual who receives new life is called to live differently in his relationships, in his thinking, etc.
What does the promise of redemption have to do with Eschatology? To put this into perspective, the Amillennial position believes that the kingdom of Christ has only spiritual benefits. Therefore, the gospel will not affect our environment. In fact, many Amillennialists will ridicule Postmillennialists as “Transformationalists.” They think that political activism is not the task of the church. The Church is a spiritual body; the kingdom is only a spiritual kingdom. Some Amillennialists will say that we are not in the business of transforming culture. In fact, Professor Richard Gaffin, one of the greatest Amillennial scholars in the 21st century says that the church “wins by losing.”[1] In other words, she will win by not speaking out; by only minding her own business of preaching the Gospel and administering bread and wine.[2]
Last year, Peter Leithart joined a panel discussion at the Evangelical Theological Society.[3] The other two scholars on the panel were Amillennial scholars. Peter pressed them on the nature of the Psalms. He told them that when we sing the Psalms we are engaging our culture and making a political statement. One of the Amillennial scholars replied, consistently I might add, that they do not sing some of the Psalms because they believe that political psalms (imprecatory Psalms), that is Psalms that convey that the civil government ought to live according to God’s Law belongs to the theocratic nation of Israel, but in the New Testament, the Bible is primarily concerned about our inner being; our spiritual lives.
The Postmillennialists believe that the promise in Genesis to have dominion carries itself throughout the Bible and certainly in the Psalms. My primary criticism of the Amillennial position concerning the Psalms is that I believe that all of the Psalms are political in nature. They all have implications for how we ought to live. Yet they are Christo-centric. Christ carries and is carrying these Psalms into completion in a progressive manner.
In Summary, Genesis affirms that the creation is very good; that God delights in His creation and He asks us to have dominion over it. He calls us to be His vice-regent on earth. As Keith Mathison observes, “…man was created to be God’s representative, ruling under God and over the creation.”[4] Further, all 150 Psalms are war tools for the people of God to sing, memorize and apply. This is the Postmillennial view.
The Bible continues to develop this theme in the Abrahamic Covenant. God makes a covenant with Abraham. There are three main encounters[5] between God and Abraham, and in every encounter God reveals more about the Promises to Abraham and to His seed.
There are five promises made to Abraham in Genesis:
a) The first promise is that Abram will become a “great nation.”
b) The second promise is that Yahweh will make Abram’s name great.
c) The third promise is that Abram will have divine protection.
d) The fourth promise is that Abram will be the mediator of divine blessings to all the nations.
e) Finally, God promises in Genesis 12 to give the land of Canaan to Abram’s descendants (Gen. 12:7).[6]
All of these promises have implications for eschatology. All these promises guarantee God’s faithfulness to fulfill His promises to Abram and His seed. According to Paul in Romans 4, Abraham is the father of all who share His faith. There are two implications for the apostle Paul in Romans:
a) First, since Abraham represents the Old Covenant saints, Paul ties the New Covenant saints together with Abraham. This means that the people of God are one people from Genesis to Revelation. There are not two peoples, but One people of God, saved by grace through faith in all Redemptive History.
b) The second implication is found in Romans 4:13. It tells us that the promise to all God’s people, who share the faith of Abraham, is that we would be heirs of the world. The land of Canaan was only the beginning of the fulfillment. But the ultimate fulfillment of land is the whole world and nothing less. The earth is the Lord’s and what is the Lord’s belong to the covenant people.
Therefore, what differentiates Postmillennialism from other positions is that Postmillennialists believe that God’s promises come to pass in history, because it only makes sense if they are fulfilled in history.
There are many passages that could be used as a defense of Postmillennial eschatology, but I would like to focus on two Old Testament passages and two New Testament passages. To be continued…
[1] Comments made in debate with Kenneth Gentry.
[2] Of course, this is central to the Postmillennial view point as well.
[3] Discussion can be downloaded from wordmp3.com. Discussion with Peter Leithart, D.G. Hart and Michael Horton.
[4] Mathison, pg. 58.
[5] Genesis 12,15,17.
[6] Mathison, pg. 62.
We spent 15 minutes discussing Atheist Richard Dawkins’ summer retreat for atheistic indoctrination.
Aaron from “Must Follow” blog writes a good article on why he will not be attending the Shepherd’s Conference this year. He links to an article I wrote some years ago on John MacArthur’s futile attempt to link Calvinistic soteriology with Dispensationalism.
Here are some of the links mentioned in our interview with Chris Ortiz.
Law and Liberty Podcast with Chris Ortiz
The Chalcedon Foundation
Rushdoony Podcast
Free Rushdoony Mp3’s
Prayer: O Most Holy and Wise God, all authority and power in heaven and earth belong to You. May we see Your wisdom as You order the world according to Your divine purposes. Amen.
Sermon: People of God, William Ernest Henley once said: “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.”[1] Henley embraced the idea that man is in charge. He is the pilot when it comes to his destiny. He is controlling every step of his life. He is unhindered by outside forces. Man is the great I AM.
If man is the master of his fate and the captain of his soul, then there is no need for the triune God. He has mastered his ways, he leans on his own understanding and he believes that he can construct his future on the basis of his past.
However, the book of Ecclesiastes tells a different story. In fact, it tells an exactly opposite story. It says that the idea of being in control of your life is a myth. It simply does not exist. It is true we can prepare for life, we can study with the hopes of knowing certain things better than others, we can save money in the bank, make intelligent investments, but according to Solomon, it is all vapor.
The reality of the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes is that no matter how much we try to get a good grasp of our lives, we are only grasping at vapor.
Before we elaborate further on Ecclesiastes 1, it is important to understand this linguistic question right at the beginning. We know that the son of David is Solomon. Solomon’s perspective of life is a very mature one. He has gone through various stages. II Kings 11 gives us a tour of Solomon’s apostasy, which can be summarized in two words: Immorality and Idolatry.
Though Ecclesiastes begins dark, it has a bright future. The words of Solomon are a “repentant rejection of his previous apostasy.”[2] We understand Solomon’s repentance when we read his words in verse 2. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
Traditionally, the Hebrew word “hebel” has been translated as “vanity” or “meaninglessness.” But Solomon does not have that in mind. If life is completely meaningless or if all we do is vanity, then this undermines the beautiful redemptive history of the church. It undermines the celebratory nature of our gathering on this Lord’s Day, it undermines our feasting, and it undermines the fruit of the labor that we bring in our tithing. If our labor is vanity and meaningless, then why does God take pleasure in our gifts to Him? Read the rest of this entry »
Psalm 118 Audio, Genevan Psalter by Michael Owens
We have confirmed Michael Owens as our guest at Trinity Talk in August.
In contrast to the two other millennial positions, Postmillennialists say that Christ will return only after/post the overwhelming success of the gospel in present history. All millennial positions agree that when Christ returns there will be unprecedented victory for the people of God. The Amillennial position like the Postmillennial position, believes that when Christ returns that will be the beginning of the New Heavens and Earth. We will live eternally with our Lord. Premillennial eschatology believes that when Christ returns he will usher in a millennial reign. The people of God will rule on earth with Christ for a thousand years of prosperity; then at the end of the thousand years Satan is set free for a short while and Christ crushes the evil one and sends him to the lake of fire. Then after that, we will live with Christ for all eternity.
The Premillennial scheme is a bit more complex. This is why if you grew up in a Premillennial church, you may remember the charts.
On the other hand, Postmillennialism and Amillennialism are fairly simple to understand. These positions are saying: “We are not waiting for a rapture, then a period of tribulation for seven years, then another coming of Christ (the Second Coming), then a thousand years, then the Final Judgment.” To be sure, scholars who defend premillennialism are very successful in conveying their ideas. After all, they are the majority view.
But if you were to ask the question: “What makes Postmillennialists different from Amillennialism and Premillennialism?” The answer is: Postmillennialism is the only eschatological position that believes in the victory of the gospel in time and in history. In other words, Postmillennialism believes “that the promises in the Old Testament of an age of great blessing on earth will be fulfilled”[1] while the church is on earth.
The question we will answer this morning is, “How can the Postmillennialist demonstrate biblically that the blessings of God’s kingdom come through the spread of the Gospel before the Second Coming?”[2]
Many assume that our understanding of eschatology comes from the Book of Revelation, but in reality our understanding of eschatology ought to come from the Book of Genesis.
[1] Smith, Ralph. A Covenantal Kingdom: A Brief Summary of Postmillennialism, pg. 3.
[2] Smith, pg. 3
Ecclesiastes begins with an important matter of debate. If we are to translate “hebel” as “meaningless” or “vanity,” we are asserting that the book has little to offer us and that life is an existentialist’s dream come true. But if we treat “hebel” as “vapor,” we are asserting that life is difficult to understand and in many ways incomprehensible. Ecclesiastes calls us to debunk what Pastor Jeff Harlow calls the “myth of control.” In other words, we are not the captain of our ships or our destiny. Yahweh alone controls our lives and in Him our actions are not meaningless.
What about Medieval Eschatology? There is not much to say about Medieval Eschatology, except to say that a form of Augustinian eschatology was prevalent. Essentially, the institutional Roman Catholic Church was closely linked to the kingdom of God. We would call this Ecclesiocracy. The Church was at the center of all of society. The Church and the Kingdom were one. The Church was not at the center of the kingdom, but it was the kingdom. It had little concern about “interacting with society and culture.”[1] It was basically what we would call today Amillennialism. It teaches that the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, not interested in transforming culture and civilization.
The Reformation
On October 31, 1517, Luther nailed the ninety-five thesis on the Church door of Wittenberg. That marked the beginning of a new era in Church History. In very general terms, the Reformation reformed the abuses of the Church and once they realized that there would be no change, the Reformers took a path of their own. In those days the Church persecuted those who disagreed with her. Things have changed quite a bit in the last 400 years.
Also, the Reformation provided a better understanding of the doctrine of salvation. Both Calvin and Luther believed strongly that salvation was first and foremost the work of God in our lives; God saves and He alone (Sola Deo Gloria).
But in the area of eschatology, the Reformers spent little time developing their millennium views. To the extent that they dealt with eschatology, the Reformers were in general agreements with Augustine. They all agreed that Premillennialism was wrong. But they did not develop much their view of eschatology. How about Luther and Calvin? Were they in agreement on every matter of eschatology? Though they did not write books on eschatology, they did have their opinions. Luther, for example, was very pessimistic about the future of the church. He believed this in large part because of the corruptions of the Catholic Church. Luther did not believe that the Christian had a duty to have dominion over all things. Calvin, on the other hand, differed with Luther. According to Keith Mathison, “Calvin encourages us to have a zeal for daily progress, but he cautions us that the final and full realization of the kingdom of Christ awaits the Second Coming.”[2] Calvin certainly set the precedent for what we call today Postmillennialism.
And we know this because his followers were the Puritans. The Puritans began to develop what it means to have an optimistic eschatology; a hopeful view of history under Christian influence. So what you have in the beginning of the 18th century all the way to the founding of Princeton Seminary is an overwhelming Postmillennial position among Reformed and non-Reformed Scholars.
Modern Eschatology
Now we come to the 21st century and much has changed. As we all know “The Left Behind Series” theology, which is the theology of Pre-Tribulational Premillenialism is the most prominent eschatology of our day.
In closing, what are some reasons Postmillennialism declined in the 20th century:[3]
a) In the twentieth century there was the rapid growth of liberal theology. It undermined supernatural assumptions. For Postmillennialism, there was a strong reliance on the supernatural power of God to bring about a godly society. With the rise of liberal theology, there was a decline of postmillennial thought.
b) Secondly, the social gospel became very pervasive. Instead of bringing the gospel to sinners, people treated the gospel as equivalent to the welfare system. There was little emphasis on Biblical truth and gospel from the pulpits. This led to a decline of postmillennial thought.
c) Finally, Postmillennialism declined as a result of the growing pessimistic trends in evangelical preaching. One early preacher said: ‘if the ship is sinking, why polish the brass.” That mentality became a part of the evangelical world and naturally postmillennial thought declined.
This is a brief survey of eschatology throughout church history. Next week, we will look at the Biblical Arguments for Postmillennialism and we will see that when we allow the Bible to interpret our future instead of the newspaper, Postmillennialism will become once again the prevailing eschatological view of the church and Christians can be encouraged by the promises of God that the gospel will prevail in time and in history. Amen.
[1] Quoted in Mathison, pg. 34.
[2] Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, pg. 40.
[3] Mainly taken from the writings of my former professor Keith Mathison at RTS; An Eschatology of Hope, pg. 48.
It was a pleasure to interview Dr. Ritchie on the topic of Biblical Ethics. Dr. Ritchie is a fine scholar who has published quite a bit in his young academic career. I am sure to see more of his writings as the years go by. Listen to our conversation or download it at Trinity Talk radio.
Links related to the Show:
Books and Links recommended by Dr. Ritchie
Ron Paul spoke today against the House resolution on Iran.
I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.
Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
{HT:Antiwar.com}
Recent Comments