Post-Mill is for Republicans

I'm reading That You May Prosper by Ray Sutton, since my Post-Mill friend at church gave it to me. My undecided pastor gave me David Chilton's Paradise Restored. My Bible Presbyterian friend is Post-Mill/Dominionist. All my FV guys -- who have good things to say on some issues -- are Post-Mill too! I have got to order Kim Riddlebarger's Amill book so I can stay sane!

After the eschatology video, I've been thinking a lot about it. During my Sunday School series, these topics are coming up more and more. I would love to have a better debate than Piper did, but I'm not sure how to frame the issues. Piper unintentionally set it up in a pre-mill vs a-mill way: Wilson didn't have much to say. Even before we get to A.D. 70 and Revelation 21, there are priorities which make the discussion impossible. Sutton, in his introduction, seems to assume the whole America-Is-The-New-Israel crap ab initio. He cites Roe vs. Wade and the decline of the family as repercussions of covenant infidelity. Why are these proofs? Because the U.S. is the testing ground for any theology?!?! I'm sure he would be calling me "overly spiritualizing" for not immediately looking to the realm of politics.

Can somebody set up the issue before we get to eschatology? Remember, Jeremiah's/Hebrew's New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, and the Old Covenant is the Covenant of Works. Now-But-Not-Yet began in the Garden. Genesis 17, with its command to apply the Initiatory Rite of the Covenant Community, is part of the New Covenant. Exodus 12 and Deuteronomy 12 are clear, concise examples of New Covenant believer's children partaking in the Covenant Meal. The eschaton broke into this world back in Genesis 3:15. I'll accept that Easter was D-Day if you'll accept Gen 3:15 as Pearl Harbor (Dec. 7).

As I try to identify my presuppositions that lead inexorably towards amillenialism, I see how early I was sold on an outline of Revelation like this. My understanding of the Cross and how it was working before Christ came means I see the reign of Christ as always present. This must mean the 1,000 years of Rev. 20 refers to something that changed after the Resurrection. The ONLY two things that changed with the bodily incarnation of the Son of God was the fulfillment of MOST types and shadows of the OT, and the expansion of the people of God to an unqualified set of all nations. Only the latter of these two makes any sense in the metaphor of binding Satan.

Lastly, the reference to souls and resurrection (ἀνάστασις) in Rev. 20 comes under my non-dual anthropology (like Leithart and Dooyeweerd). Basically, the body is a person's outside and the soul is the inside. You can't have one without the other. Rev. 20 is the only place you could try to argue from that there are people on clouds right now without bodies ... and you would be in contradiction to the rest of the Bible. We die and go to be with Christ right away, like the thief on the Cross, in the first Resurrection.

Can anyone identify a better way to approach the text(s)?

Judaism Gone Wrong

Last Sunday we prayed that the Stupak amendment would make it through the House and Senate. My friend prayed on behalf of all conservatives "Lord, we do not love this bill. But if it to pass, we pray you would keep this life-affirming portion -- this hard-won compromise -- in place." Hence, I was appalled to read this editorial by a Jew in California.
I've been really interested in Judaism lately. Have done some research on circumcision and Passover Sedars, I encountered an engaging Rabbi on YouTube and I watched an entire "Classical Reform" Jewish service from a cathedral in NYC. If I may use other senses of the word, all this great Jewish stuff has been very "evangelical".
But this editorial turned my stomach. If there are any Messianic Jews out there, wonder whether keeping the Mishna is OK, this should be the nail in the coffin. If someone can exegete Exodus 21 as being pro-choice (given Judges 13:5-7; Ps 22:10, 71:6, 139:13; Is 44:2; Jer 20:17; Hos 12:3 and so on), then they are not Biblically-minded.

Half Baptized

First I should say, Peter Leithart has written an amazing book. Second, I'm not finished reading it yet. Third, I think the Federal Vision proponents are in error ... and fantastic, Christians committed to the Word of God. Caveats complete, let me say what I've actually thought!

I am desperately trying to read everything I can for my Sunday School class. I thought it wise to read the books on the sacrament by the elder of my presbytery who examines men in regards to the sacraments. As I read, I appreciated so much of what he has written. I have long struggled with Reformed Theologies Materialistic Dualism (the idea that you are a body housing a soul -- which is the real you). Leithart, quoting Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, artfully constructs a Biblical Anthropology in a few paragraphs. "I don't have a body, I am a body."

Less well done, the good doctor tackles the problem of eternity. While it is true that God created space-time, and it was good, we cannot say so now. In the eschaton, the second law of thermodynamics will not be the same, so all of Unified Field Theory must be necessarily about to be altered. Leithart rightly points out that God created time, yet stoops to enter it, but he unhelpfully binds the theologian to Biblical phraseology. The Bible is not a textbook on semiotics, so when it says "God changes his mind" and "God cannot change his mind" we are not bound to all such statements as if they were carefully orchestrated dialectics or paradoxes on par with the Trinity.

Unperturbed with that minor hiccup, I was really starting to worry as I read more and more pages. "Am I about to find myself in the Federal Vision camp? Will the uncharitable R. Scott Clark be proven right, that I am FV despite my protestations otherwise?" But, as I turned the page to chapter three, my racing heart was calmed by Peter's poorly constructed Collectivism. This turned out to be the same error he had in the temporal mechanics arena, namely, rightly asserting that the Bible use of theological vocabulary is more nuanced then Confessional language but then turning right around an using those words a different but equally specific way across a wide swath of Scripture.

Case in point: Dr. Leithart dislikes the terms visible and invisible church. He prefers historical and eschatological. Then he says the only clear-cut reference to the "body of Christ" which eschatological is Ephesians 1:23. This from the man who every other days blogs about how everything is eschatological?!? And when does "all" every mean each and every? That old fallacy! Who in Corinth though, upon receiving Paul's First Epistle, that there could not have been any among those hearing it read, who were not truly included? The doctrine of the Visible Church may be abused by the cold, calculating Systematian, but it doesn't follow that every baptized church member is the present Body of Christ.

I have lived in Collectivist societies. I know of the struggle to get such parishioners to think individually about their identity. Our society is so much the opposite it's obscene. But I can't endorse solutions which err in the other extreme. Unregenerate people can be visibly grafted into the Church, and because they are not partakers of Christ, they will be fruitless and cut off from the tree (John 15). They never partook of Christ. Bear in mind, those of you who relished such a statement, that knowing that there is an absolute decree of God is not the same as knowing the content of said decree. We do not see the heart of men and women, so we are called to rely on what we see. Yet we can draw comfort from knowing God does not waver.

I look forward to finishing the book now.

Eschatology Videos

I probably will post on eschatology for the next several weeks. As busy as I am with my covenant theology class for Sunday School, I keep running into eschatology related materials and they keep sticking in my craw!

Jessica's full-preterist friend gave her a DVD by one of her friends. We sat down and watched it with kids crawling all over us. It was very slow paced and very repetitive. Also, it was highly biographical and not systematic at all. We got none of our objections addressed, only his.

So, to cleanse the palette, we watched "An Evening of Eschatology" with John Piper. He moderated a Premil prof from Southern, a independent Amil and Doug Wilson for Post-Mil. It was surprising to see how much Doug has in common with the Preterists. The Pre-mil guy reminded me of "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" many times as he affirmed a nearly-Dispensational-like extreme literalism while insisting upon his own interpretation against the historical commentators. Sam Storms was the closest to my position, but missed some obvious avenues of attack.

Overall, I would recommend the Piper video to everyone. I would've preferred Rob Rayburn for the Pre-Mil's and Kim Riddlebarger for the Amils (or me!). I'm sure I will pick individual topics to expound on in the near future.

Amazing Presbytery

Who knew following the BCO could be so much fun? I sure didn't. But on Friday, after giving my Christian testimony, Bob Cassis read the form for a candidate for ministry and I was riveted to the spot. I heard every word he said like we were the only people in the room. I took my vows and he charged me to look to Christ in everything. I am now "under care" of Pacific Northwest Presbytery, in preparation for attending seminary.

1. Do you promise in reliance upon the grace of God to maintain a becoming Christian character, and to be diligent and faithful in making full preparation for the sacred ministry?


2. Do you promise to submit yourself to the proper supervision of the Presbytery in matter that concern your preparation for the minitry?

Vos on Pre Noah

Two Characteristics

1. This time isn't primarily about Redemption: it's about Growth. Or, more precisely, Degeneration.
2. Almost everything in the time is negative. God keeps His intervention to a bare minimum.

Minimum? Isn't God gracious? Well, He would have to be to some degree, or else the world would collapse. Nature does not possess self-existence, so unless God upholds it, nothing would continue. God has made a Promise, so He will carry it to fulfillment. So why is this part marked by His absence? To show the consequences of Sin, by leaving it to itself as much as possible.

We are so prone to under appreciate the sinfulness of sin, that God has to rub our noses in it sometimes. We attribute to our own cleverness what is actually the grace of God. Throughout the Bible, the Lord allows people to see the evil fruit of their actions, so that when He rescues them, they see more of how good His favor is.

Three Stages

Cain and the Cainites

God is gracious. All people experience His provision, and some people are even touched by the Spirit's Creativity. Three such inventive people are mentioned in the line of Cain.

• Jabal is credited with the invention of nomadic herdsmanship.
• Jubal invented minstrel sings and playing.
• Tubal-cain forged weapons of Iron and Bronze. These techniques are so important that secular historians separate time by them (i.e. the Bronze Age, the Iron Age)

But these gifts of insight were not used for the glory of God; they were used for evil. All these creative sparks serve only to fan into flame the corruption of sin.

Cain himself is a study in degeneration. The firstborn of humankind's second generation, he murders with premeditation and malice of forethought. God warned him beforehand. After the fact, Cain denies the sinfulness of his action. The Law of Love -- to love one's neighbor as oneself -- is repudiated by him. Like us, he is more upset at the punishment of his sin than at the sin itself.

The genealogy of Cain draws emphasis on Adam, Cain and Lamech. Their reactions to sin follow a clear spiral downward. In the Garden, Adam and Eve blame others, but confess. After the his act of fratricide, Cain does not confess, but looks to God for provision against the consequences. By the eighth generation, Lamech depends only upon his sword, without reference to God. He also perverts the relationship of the sexes as the first polygamist.

Sethites

Now that we've seen the point of Cain's genealogy, Seth's lineage becomes more comprehensible. There is no mention of technological or secular developments. This shouldn't surprise us: we have so many examples from history. The Greeks cultivated arts and the Romans politics while neglecting the things of God. Not that the Sethites are marked by special spiritual maturity, merely that they avoid the degradation of the Cainites.

At the seventh generation of each line, the difference is most pronounced. Lamech was a terrorist who put down his enemies with the threat of his sword. Enoch walked with God -- like Adam in the Garden before the Fall -- and God was pleased to spare him physical death. Be sure to note the difference between "walked with God" here and the everywhere-else-present "walk before God". Enoch had something supernatural, something which naturally flowed into him escaping death.

Noah's father gave him a special name: "This one will comfort us for our work ... because of the ground which the Lord cursed." The Curse of the Fall weighed heavy on them. Just like Eve thought maybe Cain was the Promised One, so this Lamech thought his son would be the Solution. While he was wrong in the ultimate sense, at least he was looking to God for salvation. The Sethites seem to have no regard for the Lord at all.

Obviously, the Cainite culture had some influence on the continuing culture in regards to music, animal husbandry, and metallurgy. But did the Sethites affect the heathens around them? It doesn't appear so. Neither should we expect to do so without God's grace.

Intermarriage

The line of the Godly now comingles with the ungodly through intermarriage. Over and over again the lessen is taught of forsaking marriage and children. This destructive pattern is allowed to continue until it can go no futher: only Noah and his family are left among the Godly.

This entire interpretation of Genesis 6 depends on a correct understand of the phrases "Sons of God" and "daughters of men". We take this to mean the Sethite men and Cainite women respectively. A lot of people argue with this view, no unreasonably. Everyone knows that in the opening chapters of Job "sons of God" refers to the angels in heaven. However, if that is want is meant, our passage becomes incomprehensible. This is an utter unique idea! Angelic beings don't normally have sexual relations with human women, let alone take them to wife! The ridiculousness of such conjecture is show by 6:4b "and also after that" -- these 'giants' reemerge later in history! These two arguments make the inference from Jude 6,7 untenable.

Another highly contentious verse is 6:3. Two Hebrew words are at the heart of the controversy: בְּשַׁגַּם and יָדֹון (beggasham and adon). The first can mean either "in that also" or "in their going-astray". The second either "to rule" or "to abide". Overall, the best option seems to be to say that God the Spirit would not abide or curtail man's evilness after 120 years had past. This verse is a warning that the Flood is coming.

Sovereign Grace Worship

Lessons Learned from Three Decades of Leading from Sovereign Grace Ministries on Vimeo.

'Watched the whole thing.  'Better than sleep!

Blogged with the Flock Browser