John Ahern writes,
No way.
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God…. 1 John 4:i-iii.
I don’t claim to understand St. John at all. He usually mystifies me to the point of distaste, but I find him much more palatable if I find a good Leithart or the occasional Johannine Wright commentary. This particular passage struck me in the Reading this Sunday, because he gives a simple delineation between a spirit of God and a spirit not of God. St. John seems to be saying that you distinguish the good ideas and bad ideas by how they take into account the truth that Christ came in the flesh. Obviously, the Bible would be far too long a book to discuss every little doctrinal point, so John is leaving the finer issues to the “little children”, provided they always keep in mind the doctrine of the Incarnation – Christ came in the flesh.
This seemed especially pertinent to me because I’m going through one of those phases where I see everything around me by how Platonic and Kantian it is. If I sense the slightest nod or curtsy towards anything spiritual, I get suspicious. I happen to think this is also why I’m going through an especially Postmillennial phase.
Let me explain. This is about eschatology – a zippy fiver, something like “the study of the last”. It’s the study of the “end times”. All that stuff in Daniel, the Apocalypse, etc. W. B. Yeats did a bad job of this, if you remember, as did Tim LaHaye. What most Christians hardly realize is that they essentially agree with Yeats and LaHaye on most things eschatological, relating to the “end times”. And here’s the stab.
Postmillennialism, in short technicality, is the belief that Christ will return after the 1000 years of peace on this earth. Premillennialism believes the opposite, that Christ returns, and then the happy 1000 years begin. Now, since Christ hasn’t returned yet, according to Postmillennialism, that must mean we’re in the 1000 years of peace right now.
There are two obvious objections to Postmillennialism, which I’ll address briefly. First, when did this 1000 years begin, if we’re in it right now? As it turns out, Postmillennialists interpret these 1000 years of peace figuratively. I’m sure we could get into a nice argument over this, but suffice it to say, there are plenty of places where it is permissible by anyone’s standards to interpret the Bible figuratively, and this may well be one of them. The 1000 years began at the Ascension, roughly, and we’re still in it right now.
The second objection is obvious. What peace? This certainly is not a very peaceful 1000 years. But the Bible has some strange views on peace. Christ is called the “Prince of Peace” and we hear references (and usually ignore them cozily or take them figuratively, which I think is in this case impermissible) to “the increase of government and peace”, and “judgment and justice”. Now, with all these nice peaceful prospects, why would Christ say that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword?
In this 1000 years of peace, we are fighting in a sanctification process, but on a cosmic scale. Obviously, there isn’t peace yet, but for Postmillers, we believe in the hopeful view – eventually, by the time this millennium (figuratively) is over, there will be peace. One simply can’t ignore all those places in the Bible – “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea,” or “He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the House of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.” Later, “Let the sea roar and the fulness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein.”
Now, keep in mind that Postmillennialism is essentially a Calvinistic position. (Not all Calvinists, however, are postmillers.) Calvinists are notorious for their belief in “Limited Atonement”. What most people don’t know is that Postmillennialism is complementary to Limited Atonement. We believe in a Limited Atonement – sombody’s going to Hell. But it’s Limited only so far as we believe that the entire world can be saved, (all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation, remember?). It’s not universalism, but it is the belief that eventually there will come a time where everyone alive on this earth will be more than a nominal Christian.
If you think of it, this idea – not just individuals, but the whole catholic Church goes through a process of sanctification – only makes sense. In this is 1000 years of peace, you could draw the analogy to the salvation of the individual. Even though we are the new man, even though we are spotless and sinless as Christians, we are still struggling in the grip of sin. It’s a paradox, but no bigger a paradox than the idea that the Church is in this 1000 years of peace, even if we are still struggling to bring it about.
A quick word on that – I do believe it is the Church’s job to bring this about. Again, this is a Calvinistic idea, and if you’re thinking, “Well, it’s God who has to bring it about, not us,” you are still in a very Enlightenment modernist grip. As Ransom realizes in Peralandra that he is God’s hand in the matter, and there’s no contradiction between God doing it and him doing it, so too the Church can bring this about, and God can still be sovereign. It sheds a whole new light on the idea of the Church being the Body of Christ if it is the Body of Christ bringing this about.
In short, it is an exceedingly depressing and unhopeful view that everything we do here on this earth is going to be eventually destroyed by the Devil before Christ comes. To draw the Doug Wilson analogy, any other view than Postmil treats this earth as if it were a spiritual Vietnam, and we’re asked to hold down the fort until the choppers to and evacuate the situation. Or rapture it. Or whatever. Then everything collapses. That makes Richard Nixon look way too good, and God look really bad.
More importantly, this seems to fit in with that St. John passage up there. Unfortunately, the Vietnam model concentrates on spiritual salvation, forgetting that Christ came in the flesh. This material world and its spiritual contents are what Christ came to save. The world, not just your soul. If all that matters is your spiritual salvation – forget saving material things – then you’re believing in a Platonic but hardly Incarnational gospel. I hate to do this to Philip and Nick, but I feel obliged to point out that this St. John passage traces doctrinal error to a misunderstanding of Trinitarian and Incarnational theology. And apologies to Mark, but he seems to be tending dangerously towards Platonism.
The Bible doesn’t always talk of salvation as soul-saving. Remember, God saved Israel in the act of saving them from the Egyptians. He saved them countless times from other pagan enemies who had them in a corner. All this taken in the broader picture of bringing about world peace shows you a very material, hands-in-the-dirt salvation. But it is salvation in Biblical (if not evangelical) terms, and thinking it isn’t as important as spiritual salvation is a subtle way of denying that Christ came in the flesh.
Postmillennialism is a radical view, because as Christians, it means that everything we do must be a concentrated effort to bring about this unfathomable, implausible Reign. Even to believe it can come about is the most absurd idealism, but keep in mind it’s the pessimistic frozen-chosen who are proposing this. Maybe a world full of happy Calvinists is possible….
|
Posted at 6:54 pm EST on the 24th of June 2008 by John R. Ahern. Under Theology as Christian worldview, Links, Platonism There are 11 replies. |
 |
| Pontification Ad Nauseam | ||
Is a blog of developing Christian writers, their minds, and their ideas.
Copyright MMIX. All Rights Reserved by Pontification Ad Nauseam And Its Respective Contributors. Powered by Wordpress. Pontification Ad Nauseam uses advanced web technology. For the best user experience please use Safari or Firefox 3.5+. |
In no sense does Premillenialism deny the Incarnation.
Firstly, having made this statement, I can’t say the body is unimportant. It is. However, the soul is still insuperably paramount. Your body dies; your soul lives. Period.
Secondly, it’s really hard to see how we could be living in the 1000 years of peace. I think we only need to cite World War II to see how ridiculous the idea is. If anything, more people have died in this century than ever. Even if we grant that the 1000 years hasn’t started yet…when will it start? Speculatively, I’d be inclined to say that in the next century, at any rate, the world is likely only to become uglier.
However, back to our original point. Christ died for souls, not for material goods. I think this is extraordinarily evident in his life. He says, rather often, that we must leave worldly goods behind us. We are called to be stewards of what we have; but if you look at his life, he did not have anything. We should want to preserve our world; but we should not be tricked into thinking that it is at all as important as saving men.
Finally, you said that thinking that material isn’t as important as spiritual salvation is a subtle way of denying that Christ came in the flesh. Here I must say that the beauty of the incarnation was not exactly that Christ took on flesh. Had he taken on animal flesh, we would not have been saved. The principal fact to be grasped, is that he became man, and thus had a body and a soul. The main thing was never to save bodies, nor indeed to save only souls, but to save whole men.
In conclusion, at this point, Postmillenialism seems unlikely; and I don’t think that Premillenialism violates the principles of the Incarnation.
About your first point, the only way I can get around agreeing with you is to either propose that the soul dies or that the body doesn’t. Since the former is a little distressing to most Christians, I’ll go with the latter. But I think both have truth. The body doesn’t die, because Christ defeated death. Bodily, too. Remember, we are resurrected in our bodies as well as our souls. Personally, I have a hard time getting the idea that we can enjoy heaven without our bodies. I don’t think you can really do anything without your body. How are we supposed to engage in any hedonism if Christ is a Body (as He always will be) and we are vapor-paper floating-flithing spirits, if you will? That’s why I love the beautifully innocent unPlatonic Easter Orthodox view. You don’t die. You sleep. Your soul and your body.
Second – remember, we’re talking figuratively. Not literally 1000 years. Again, it may take a long time for this peace to be brought about, and that may involve the 1000 years taking a very, very long time. But I have every belief that all ends of the Earth shall see the salvation of our God. Forgive the Psalmnodic language.
Third – where does it say that Christ died for souls, not material goods? I think Christ admonishes us to leave behind (oh! the Platonic and Lahayian ovetones) material “goods” not because they are not as good as the spirituality he teaching, but because the priorities are wrong. I’m not denying you need reform on the inside before the outside, but to believe the outside is less important is a bit fallacious.
We agree, however, that Christ came to save whole men. I’m just wondering where the Bible starts preaching Christ coming to save souls alone and where it stopped teaching that He came to save the World (which naturally implies the material and the spiritual).
John, you’re a blockhead.
During my time as a Christian, I’ve been told that I need to concentrate all my efforts on a number of things. Never have I been told to concentrate all my efforts on bringing about an implausible Reign consisting of Happy Calvinists. For my considerably broadened religious perspective, I thank you. I hadn’t actually thought such a unilateral and splintered brand of Christian Mission was even possible.
To tell the truth, I’ve never been a Bible-bearing kind of person, and I ended up having to consult Wikipedia to find out where all this ruckus started at. I found out that it’s some passage in the Apocalypse. Leave it to a bright young Christian to tell me that my whole life should be based on an puzzling and difficult passage in the most puzzling and difficult book of the Bible.
Well, as long as Christianity draws its life-blood from study and brilliant theses it will remain stale, stiff as a corpse, sexually spent. If you’re going to be fiery and radical, find something else to cling to. Theology is worthless.
Sorry I didn’t make this clear in my post – postmillennialism is not bringing about a reign of Happy Calvinists. It’s about as likely as Calvinists ever being happy, though. Again, it’s a rather optimistic view of life.
Interesting you say that this is a unilateral and splintering idea. That all Christians are sooner or later going to become this one monolithically true branch of theology is a pretty divisive, schismatic, not to say Protestant notion.
If you don’t mind me turning the tables a little bit, isn’t that exactly Rome? True Branch? Theology? Monolithic? Rome has always been understood as ecumenical, unified, catholic, but never splintering. Which is not a random attack on it, but simply to say, any truth you hold onto as true is going to be unilateral and splintering.
You have me nailed on theology, however. I should have made my post more Pauline. As a matter of fact, Postmil is rather Pauline, it’s just my presentation that’s not. If you believe the joy of salvation can be slathered over so much bread, so to speak, you have direct applications into everything. Joy of salvation in politics, science, culture, peanut butter, music, poetry, art, cheese, coke cans…. Now, tell me that’s Platonic.
First of all, John, I would have thought it clear by this time that by criticizing the RCC, you’re hardly turning the tables on me. I don’t feel any need or ability to defend it. In fact, if you take up Catholic bashing, I’m more than half likely to join you.
And about the rest of what you said, that all truth held with conviction is splintering, well, first, that’s ridiculous. But second, I think you’re missing my point. My quarrel with you is that you’re taking a passage that has been interpreted by clever people and devout, sincere Christians in a number of ways, and making one interpretation of that passage all-important — “everything we do must be a concentrated effort to bring about this unfathomable, implausible Reign.”
That’s a huge mistake. If there’s going to be a central goal, or a scriptural passage that guides the efforts of all Christians, it should be the clear and straightforward command of Jesus in the great commission, not an extremely debatable passage of John’s Apocalypse.
So it’s really perfectly okay with me that you’re a Postmiller, but please do two things. One, don’t try to make it the centerpiece of the Gospel. Two, make some effort to argue from scripture. You haven’t made a single mention of Revelation 20 in your whole impassioned speech. All you’ve done is tell us what a great idea it is from a theological point of view.
That’s no good. I mean, really, John, theology is beneath you.
Oh, John, my head, my head. Have you no regard for my poor little head?
I need to read it it all the way through. The first few paragraphs were actually really good, but I already know where you’re coming from, so maybe they weren’t. I don’t know. I’ll come back some time when I’m not in Canada and read the whole thing. Postmillenialism makes little sense in Canada.
Nick – I think this could be cleared up easily: Revelation 20 is not the central verse in the Postmil argument. I did not make mention of Revelation 20 because in this cursory explanation of Postmil it really didn’t seem necessary. Those other ones I did cite go to show that Postmil, if it is true, is all over the place in the Bible (Great Commission included). Wikipedia needs editing – Revelation 20 is, as far as I know, not the central passage in support of Postmillennialism. It may be where it gets its name, and it may be where one differentiates between Postmil, Premil, and Amil.
Be that as it may, I definitely used Scripture in this post, just not the ones that authorities anonymous might have said were necessary. It’s not the centerpiece, but let’s say it’s the flame that burns out of the candle in the centerpiece. (Grr. Socrates comes up with analogies like it’s so easy. And they all make sense.)
Han – I think a lot of people have complained about their poor little heads, even ones I may have regard for, but I still have not reformed my incoherent ways. Interesting political insight into Canada, though. “Postmillenialism makes little sense in Canada” is hardly a hopeful view.
Jesus’ answer (repeatedly) to those (often His own disciples) who expected Him to construct an earthly kingdom was consistently “My kingdom is not of this world.” Another answer was “It is appointed unto man once to die, after that the judgment.”
It’s as clear and easy to understand as “This IS my body.” It’s amazing and amusing how such simple doctrines become ignored in favor of debates over “premill” “postmill” and everything in between.
Jesus’ answer (repeatedly) to those (often His own disciples) who expected Him to construct an earthly kingdom was consistently “My kingdom is not of this world.” Another answer was “It is appointed unto man once to die, after that the judgment.”
It’s as clear and easy to understand as “This IS my body.” It’s amazing and amusing how such simple doctrines become ignored in favor of debates over “premill” “postmill” and everything in between.
Jesus’ answer (repeatedly) to those (often His own disciples) who expected Him to construct an earthly kingdom was consistently “My kingdom is not of this world.” Another answer was “It is appointed unto man once to die, after that the judgment.”
It’s as clear and easy to understand as “This IS my body.” It’s amazing and amusing how such simple doctrines become ignored in favor of debates over “premill” “postmill” and everything in between.