eschatology – Iron Ink

Baptist & Amillennial Blunders

“While it is true that the gospel does have ripple effects on society, it is wrong to equate the kingdom with those ripple effects.”

-Sam Waldron
Baptist Amillennialist

Waldron, along with Baptist Amillennialist Tom Hicks has written a book inveighing against Theonomy and postmillennialism. One position they take as Amillennialists is that the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church. Now, keep in mind that if it is true that there is no such thing as neutrality this Amillennial position means that all other Institutions of men that are not the visible church are, by necessity, outposts of the Kingdom of Satan. That which cannot be part of the Kingdom of God is always a part of the Kingdom of Satan and is always opposed to the Kingdom of God. This means, families, education, arts, politics, courts, medicine, and all the institutions that wherein these are contained all belong to Satan’s rule because according the Waldron, Hicks and countless number of Amillennialists the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church.

This is despite the fact that we are taught to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. This position is held despite the fact that we are to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. This position is held despite the fact that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Christ who then instructed us to disciple the nations. This stupid Amillennial position is held despite the fact that the gates of hell would not prevail in the Church’s work of extending the Kingdom.

The Amillennialist position is fine with Jesus being King over the Church. They are fine with Jesus being King over our individual personal lives. However, these poor chaps get stuck on the idea that the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the Church and personal individual lives, as that is multiplied by God’s faithfulness to build his Church, will necessarily mean that all the various institutions that are built up by converted men and women will thus become expressions of the Kingdom of God.

Waldron, instead wants to refer to all that as “ripple effects on society.” Apparently “Kingdom ripples,” are acceptable but actually being part of the Kingdom of God is verboten. One wonders where an acceptable Kingdom ripple ends and where an unacceptable Kingdom identity begins. Maybe we should begin a “Kingdom ripple police.” These Kingdom ripple police would make sure that ripples never became more than ripples.

Waldron needs to be reminded that Jesus was crucified for being the kind of King that the Romans found threatening. Rome would not have found Jesus being King to be threatening to their rule if they had believed that the Kingship that Jesus brought was only to be over a private religious organization (Church) or over people’s “hearts.” Pilate would never of hoisted Jesus up on the Cross if Jesus had been only some kind of private sphere King.

“If these arguments that I am making are correct then Christian Nationalism is actually Satanic. It is, in truth, Satanic Nationalism because it is a usurpation of Christ’s authority… The book of Revelation teaches that their is an unholy alliance between state religion and and overpowered civil government. Any government that claims authority over the Church’s orthodoxy and fills the church with reprobates is under the influence of the dragon and is speaking with the voice of the dragon.”

Tom Hicks
Anabaptist Amillennialist

1.) Hicks great presupposition here is that a nation’s government should allow for all the gods into the public square. Being Baptist, Hicks, by definition, believes in pluralism, which means he believes in polytheistic Nationalism. Since religion is an inescapable category all nations practice a nationalism as animated by some religion.

2.) Notice when one gives up Biblical Christianity the categories of good and evil end up being inverted. Once Hicks calls genuine Christian Nationalism, “Satanic Nationalism,” he now has embraced “Satanic Nationalism” as being Christian.

3.) Hicks is correct about the book of Revelation but all because a godless union of church and state persecuted the Church in the book of Revelation (something we would expect) that doesn’t mean all cooperative work between a Christian church and Christian State is evil.

4.) A Christian government correcting a Christian church that is giving up doctrines of the true Christian faith is a blessing. Obviously a government filling up the Church with reprobates would not be a Christian government and would, as such, have to be resisted. Hicks makes no sense.

5.) Hicks is speaking with the voice of the Dragon.

Hicks is speaking with the voice of the radical reformation (AnaBaptists). Below is a Puritan voice of the second Reformation – John Owen. It provides a correction to Hicks Baptist ramblings.

“Protestants teach unanimously that is it incumbent on kings to find out, receive, embrace, and promote the truth of the gospel, and the worship of God appointed therein, confirming, protecting, and defending of it by their regal power and authority; as also, that in their so doing they are to use the liberty of their own judgments, informed by the ways that God hat appointed for that end, independently of the dictates, determinations, and orders of any other person or persons in the world, unto whose authority they should be obnoxious.”

John Owen
Puritan

Hicks and Waldron are classic examples of problems one finds with amillennial, baptist, theology. These guys think they are claimants to the doctrines of the Reformation and claimants of covenant theology. However, when it comes down to it, all you are left with when one embraces Baptist Amillennialism is discontinuity, dualism, and dispensationalism.

Postmillennialism vis-a-vis Amillennialism … Foundational Differences Teased Out

“It is right for you to realise, and to take as the sum of what we have already stated, and to marvel at exceedingly; namely, that since the Saviour has come among us, idolatry not only has no longer increased, but what there was is diminishing and gradually coming to an end: and not only does the wisdom of the Greeks no longer advance , but what there was is fading away. … And to sum the matter up: behold how the Saviour’s doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily dwindling, and losing power, and falling. … For as, when the sun is come, darkness no longer prevails, but if any be still left anywhere it is driven away; so, now that the divine Appearing of the Word of God is come, the darkness of the idols prevails no more, and all parts of the world in every direction are illumined by His teaching.”

Athanasius, AD 296-372
Incarnation

“…the kingdom of God on earth is not confined to the mere ecclesiastical sphere, but aims at absolute universality, and extends its supreme reign over every department of human life….It follows that it is the duty of every loyal subject to endeavor to bring all human society, social and political, as well as ecclesiastical, into obedience to its law of righteousness.”

A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine
(Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1890] 1990), 283

“It would be easy to show that at our present rate of progress the kingdoms of this world never could become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. Indeed, many in the Church are giving up the idea of it except on the occasion of the advent of Christ, which, as it chimes in with our own idleness, is likely to be a popular doctrine. I myself believe that King Jesus will reign, and the idols be utterly abolished; but I expect the same power which turned the world upside down once will still continue to do it. The Holy Ghost would never suffer the imputation to rest upon His holy name that He was not able to convert the world.”

~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

As Amill eschatology believes that the Kingdom of God is exactly identified with the Church and only with the Church it is inevitable that Amills will diminish the necessity for Christianity to conquer in every area of life outside and beyond the Church. After all, for the Amillennial types, if the Kingdom of God is not inclusive of any area outside the Church and the Kingdom is only synonymous with and for “the Church,” there is no need to conquer those other arenas / areas that for the Amillenialist are “non-Kingdom” arenas.

What I mean is this: As the Amils are always leaning towards identifying the Kingdom of God only with the Church — thus drawing a bright line demarcating between Kingdom/Church activity and non-Kingdom/Church activity — the consequence is that the “consistent with their eschatology” Amils will always chide anybody in the Christian faith who sees the Kingdom as being an arena that is expansive beyond the Church so as in include arenas as education, jurisprudence, just war theory, politics, economics, etc.

Postmils, to the contrary, believing that the Kingdom is not identified as exclusively with the Church and believe thus that the Kingdom of God extends beyond the Church and so will do just the opposite of the Amill and emphasize the necessity that the Church, being the armory of God’s Kingdom, must seek to conquer every arena of human existence. The Postmills believing this then will, unlike their Amill counterparts, address these different various issues from the pulpit. This leaves their Amill counterparts apoplectic.

The fact that this analysis is accurate is seen especially in the writings of David Van Drunen, who I believe has drawn out the most consistently the errant implications of the Amil eschatology. Van Drunen writes in his “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”;

“God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world, but is preserving them through the covenant he made with all living creatures through Noah in Gen. 8:20 – 9:19.”

Van Drunen continues writing;

“God is redeeming a people for himself, by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham and brought to glorious fulfillment in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has completed Adam’s original task once and for all” (p. 15). As VanDrunen explains, “redemption is not ‘creation regained’ but ‘re-creation gained’” (p. 26).

When one follows this reasoning closely one realizes that for R2K Amillennialism the intent of Biblical Christianity is to preserve culture so that individuals alone, as extracted from their cultural context, might be redeemed. Individuals are redeemed while their cultural context by definition is unredeemable. If Van Drunen were a linguist he would say that God intends to redeem the text while leaving the context to experience soul sleep. This is consistent Amillennialism and because of this Amillennial “theologians” will go spastic in condemning Postmillennialists for preaching on subject matter that in their Amillennial worldview does not particularize the need for the individual as an individual to be redeemed.

This thus creates a ever growing hostility between consistent Amills and consistent Postmills. In this hostility the Amils will forever be accusing the Postmills of diluting the Christian message since, as the Amills believe, the Postmills major on the minors and the Postmills will forever rightly accuse the Amills of being cowardly pietists who love them some retreat and who are characterized in preaching a Christianity that redeems the text (individual) while leaving the context (culture) unaffected.

This explanation also sheds light on the fact that Amillennialism Christianity and Postmillennialism Christianity create very different types of character and personalities in people. People who are decidedly Postmil are typically going to be type “A” personalities who have a thirst to conquer while people who are decidedly type “B” personalities will be content to be passive and retiring — except when attacking postmillennialists and their eschatology. Amills typically refuse to fight unless it is to fight those (postmills) who never tire of fighting for the honor of Christ.

McAtee Engages Rev. Chris Gordon on Eschatology

One problem with Amillennialism is that it ignores that with the victory of Christ over the Cross and with His Ascension Christ has brought in the age to come so that it is rolling back this present wicked age. Amillennial eschatology is old covenant eschatology inasmuch as it is front loaded with the “not yet” (this present wicked age) while ignoring that we are, because of Christ’s victory, living in the “now” ( age to come). For the Amill everything, practically speaking, is still yet to come. The Victory of Christ is only a “Spiritual Victory,” and does NOT impact planet earth except so as to save a person here or there. The Amill insists that planet earth will always be under the tutelage of the evil one until Christ visibly returns to conquer a previously untamed Satan.

Amillennialism (along with Full Preterism) are a Gnostic. Both relegate Christ’s Ascension and Victory and rule to a spiritual realm and deny any impact on culture, nations, lifespan, disease, sin, etc. All the blessings of Isaiah 65 and 66 (end of war, poverty, disease, long life) are spiritualized and relegated to the realm of paradise and the departed saints. Such eschatology is defeatist.

“The problem with postmillennialism in American today is just that, it’s just too American. To wait eagerly for the second coming and the destruction of all enemies, doesn’t make us pessimists and defeatists with regard to Christ’s victory, it drives us to live in confident hope that Christ’s kingdom victory will soon be realized in glory when he returns on the clouds of heaven.”

Rev. Chris Gordon

And the problem with Amillennialism is that it’s just too masochistic. They long for defeat. They relish the thought of seeing the Kingdom of Christ beaten back. They spend so much time eagerly waiting for the second coming and the destruction of all God’s enemies that they refuse to fight now. Why fight if it is ordained that Christ will not visibly reign over His enemies until He returns? If Christ has promised that He will not visibly reign over His enemies until He returns then per Amillennialism, the postmills are absolutely in disobedience to God’s Word in expecting Christ to have the victory in space and time.

Gordon insists that the Postmill vision detract from preaching the Cross. He apparently assumes that preaching the Cross and preaching the visible victory of Christ and His Kingdom are mutually contradictory.

Amillennialism makes certain that Christianity will forever be in the catacombs or cowering against the might of the State or masochistically enjoying some defeat at the hands of some anti-Christ somewhere.

Next, the whole crap about postmill being “too American” is just beyond silly given that the Reformed Church up until the creation of Westminster was, in its majority report, postmillennial in its eschatology. Postmillennialism is stamped all over the writings of the Puritans and the Southern Presbyterians. Postmill advocates of varying proclivities include such notables as OT Allis, Athanasius, Augustine, Greg Bahnsen, John Calvin, RL Dabney, Jonathan Edwards, Eusebius, AA Hodge, Charles Hodge, J Marcellus Kik, J Gresham Machen, Iain Murray, John Murray, Gary North, John Owen, RJ Rushdoony, WGT Shedd, Augustus Strong, JH Thornwell, and BB Warfield. I wonder if Gordon notices all the non-American names here?

I loathe militant and pessimistic Amillennials. They are a absolute hindrance to the march of the Kingdom.

Gordon, being on a roll, continued,

“If we were witnessing widespread repentance in America and people falling at the feet of Jesus, then I might be able to take the current popularity of postmillennialism more seriously, but it strikes me as odd that in the midst of the sweeping moral revolution that characterizes our time, all of the sudden the idea of a golden age breaking into America is finding great approbation in certain quarters of the American church. What gives? Championing postmillennialism and dominion victory at a moment in history when the church is on the brink of serious persecution feels more like a desperation cry and a last-ditch effort to save an incompatible eschatology with life in America.”

Rev. Chris Gordon

R2K Fanboy

I can see Gordon that you would have concluded that Christianity was not true were you alive to see Jesus crucified because at that moment it was hardly self-evident that Jesus Christ was/is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

Per your reasoning, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ would have proven that the claims of Christ were NOT true. Is that the way you come to truth Rev. Gordon? “Well, if it is popular, then of course it must be true and if it is unpopular, well, then, obviously it is not true.”

Do you always judge what is and is not true based on the circumstances of any given particular moment?

But, you know what Gordon … you’re right. Let’s us just surrender and ask for our amillennial bullet in the nape of the neck right now and be done with contending for Christ and His Kingdom. After all, we are going to lose anyway.

And for the trilogy Gordon adds;

“Postmillennialism has, as of recent, become the rage in online discourse and in popular books like Stephen Wolfe’s “Christian Nationalism.” This has been curious to me as a pastor in the Reformed tradition due to the fact that most Christians recognize that we have come to the end of Christendom in America.”

Rev. Chris Gordon

Really Chrissie?

Most Christians recognize that we have come to the end of Christendom in America? Even were that true, how does that alone prove that postmillennialism shouldn’t be advocated for in books? Oh, and is it your habit to come to truth by counting noses? Do you always reason in such a way; “Most Christians recognize that governments schools are good for their children therefore governments schools are good for their children?” This is a very odd way for clergy to assess truth… or maybe not so odd given the quality of our current clergy?

And Gordon, did you slip there by implying that at one time America was Christian? After all, Christendom in America can’t end unless it at one time Christendom in America really did exist. But you can’t mean that because R2K does not believe that Christendom as a category is even possible.

Finally, Pastor, did you take a poll so as to know that “most Christians recognize that we have come to an end of Christendom in America?”

The Centrality Of Eschatology

Pertaining to eschatology, another reason eschatology is so important is that one cannot understand the individual pieces of the puzzle unless first has a template by which to read the individual puzzle piece. It is the box that has the whole on it that allows us to understand the many parts in the box we will be putting together.

In the same way we will understand no historical incidents (the individual puzzle pieces) correctly unless we have a proper eschatology that gives us a template by which to read the individual pieces (the box top picture that is needed to know about the puzzle pieces).

People (Christians) who have wildly varying eschatologies are trying to use the pieces from the same puzzle to make wildly varying realities — and all in the name of the same Christ. So, at the end of the day their respective eschatologies are giving them very very different Christianities — indeed one is tempted to say different faiths.

As Christians we can not lean into life at all properly without a right eschatology. “Christians” who have a wrong eschatology are, more often than not, at cross purposes from those with a correct eschatology (post-millennialism) and so are pouring water on each other’s fire. To be perfectly candid I don’t want amillennialism or dispensationalism or premillennialism or full Preterism to succeed or grow because those eschatologies detract from God’s glory and end up creating a finished puzzle that does not correspond to God’s reality. I suspect if those other eschatological schools were honest they would likewise admit that they do not desire my eschatology/theology to succeed for the same reasons.

The thing is that a person runs all their theology through their eschatology so that eschatology is before all considerations and not after. One does not do all their theology and say, “therefore my eschatology.” One does all their eschatology ands says “therefore the rest of my theology.” As such eschatology is both prolegomena and last things at the same time.

Our eschatology tells us how the Bible holds together and the way we understand how the Bible holds together tells how we understand all reality holds together. When you tell me a person’s eschatology, you tell me not only what kind of Christian I can expect to be working with but you also tell me what kind of human being I can expect to be working with.

In the beginning was the eschatology, and the eschatology was with God and the eschatology was God. This is so because God had the end in mind when He began the beginning and so everything He began He put the end of the matter in that beginning so that the end that he planned from the beginning would have a beginning that would end at the end planned from the beginning.

Eschatology is everything.

Get your eschatology wrong and all else will suffer. Get your eschatology right and all else will fall into place.

The Macro Flow Of Scripture As Reason For Optimistic Eschatology

he (The Lord) says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
    to restore the tribes of Jacob
    and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
    that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Isaiah 49:6

The movement of Scripture seems to require a postmillennial eschatology. Think about it. The Old Covenant moves from the Universal to the Particular after the fall. After the fall God’s salvation design is eventually particularized to one people (Israel), though the purpose of that one people is to be a witness to the nations of how great a God they have. From there the failure of Israel, like the failure of mankind prior to the flood, means an even more progressive reduction moving to “the remnant” (Not all of Israel was ever all of Israel) and then finally God’s salvation design culminates in the election of Jesus Christ to be God’s representative for Redemption of His people.

However, with the resurrection of Christ we find a progressive advance of redemption. What had been, prior to the arrival of Christ, a redemptive movement of the many to the one, with the resurrection the redemptive energy reverses and is now from the one to the many. We are still looking at election and representation, but the further salvific development unfolds so that from the center reached in the resurrection of Christ the way no longer leads from the many to the One but rather, as seen in the incorporating of the Nations, the movement in Redemption is progressively advancing from the one to the many. Consistently traced out this pattern and trajectory requires a belief in postmillennialism.

To argue that the post-resurrection and ascension of Christ means a narrowing of the potency of the soteriological impact of God’s design of salvation is counter-intuitive to the eschatological flow communicated and demonstrated in revelation.

Maybe Warfield’s “Universal Postmillennialism” was correct?