Sure & Certain Victory

“What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.”

Karl Marx

“You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win.”

Ho Chi Minh

In reading Carroll’s “The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution,” one constant theme across the Communist Revolution where-ever it was found was the certainty of coming victory despite the odds or despite any recent defeats. The Communist elites knew that victory was inevitable. Whether you are talking about Lenin in Russia, Mao in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Guevara and Castro in Cuba, Sukarno in Indonesia or Caballero in Spain they all were absolutely optimistic about the coming victory that they would eventually win. These Demon animated men were optimistic in their eschatology. They were not always right but they were right many times more than they were wrong.

What of Christians? What of they who have the truth? What of they who champion the cause of King of Kings and the greatest anti Marxist Revolutionary who has ever lived?

The great majority of Christians admit and boast that they are going to lose. John MacArthur even once went of a jag in the pulpit saying;

“We lose down here. Get used to it.”

And the Amen chorus coming from the R2K “Amen corner” was deafening.

This Christian pessimistic eschatology,which has been the majority report in the Reformed Church at least since the end of WW I, of both the premil and amil variants ends up being a self-fulfilled prophecy. If one really believes that they are going to “lose down here,” then they will live their lives planning for defeat and expecting disappointment.

It seems that where we Christians need to be more like the Marxists in anticipating victory we are at that point most unlike them and where we Christians need to be least like the Marxists in being egalitarian we are at that point most like them.

Yet, despite being saddled with the dead weight of a Church, who in the majority, are pessimistic in their eschatology I still know that small as our numbers might be right now we will, in the end, win out. We are going to win. It is evident. We have the God’s own testimony in Scripture. It is as sure as the sunrise coming the following morning. Tears may last for the night but joy cometh in the morning. The enemy can not defeat us or our cause — no, not even the enemy in our midst.

A Few Words On I Corinthians 15:20 & Resurrection, Age To Come, and Union With Christ

I Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

This passage is commonly used as a Easter Sunday sermon text. That is appropriate. However, in this post we are considering that even more can be taught from this text than might be first thought.

The most common and accurate point from this text that is taught is the reality of solidarity between Christ and the believer. This solidarity is of such a nature that what is predicated about Christ in terms of His resurrection is predicated about the believer. This is true, however this passage teaches more than solidarity, it teaches Union with Christ … it confirms what Christ Himself said earlier when He said;

“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

There is a vital union between Christ and the believer of such a nature that in life the believer produces the fruit of Christ and in death the believer, because of their union with Christ, is part of the harvest because he is one with Christ.

Referring back to I Cor. 15:2o we are told that Christ in His resurrection was the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. As is well known firstfruits comes from the Hebrew agricultural world. Paul’s usage of it here in relation to the resurrection is the motif of this whole chapter.  Firstfruits, in the OT described the firstfruits of sacrifice that were brought each year at the beginning of the spring grain harvest in Israel (e.g., Ex. 23:16, 19; Lev. 23:10, 17, 20; Prov. 3:9). Obviously enough, what was being communicated in part was the idea that with the cultic sacrifice the firstfruits were promissory of the whole to follow. However, there is more going on then mere temporal priority. There is also the idea communicated that their is a vital union between the firstfruits and the harvest that will eventually follow. The firstfruits harvest represents the harvest of the whole crop which will come. Christ as the resurrected firstfruit, is promissory of the whole crop because the firstfruits with the whole crop are one.

This whole Pauline concept teaches that just as the harvested firstfruits offered could not be separated from what was to to soon be harvested from the whole field so Christ as the firstfruit of the resurrection life cannot be separated from the whole crop that will follow. To talk about a firstfruit without a following harvest is like talking about a bride walking down the aisle that doesn’t end with a “now you may kiss the bride.”

So, there is more going on here than just the idea that because God raised Jesus from the dead therefore God will raise believers as well, as absolutely true as that is. The more that is here is that in Christ the resurrection harvest has begun and since believers are all part of that same harvest resurrection in Christ the firstfruits, believers themselves as the latter fruit have already experienced the beginnings of resurrection. In Christ’s resurrection, God has begun fulfilling the promise that includes our resurrection.

Dr. Richard Gaffin in his book, “In The Fullness of Time,” provides a helpful illustration;

“If we were to have Paul at a prophecy conference or some other venue and were to ask him, ‘When, Paul, will the resurrection event take place in which believers share?’ The first thing he would likely say is, ‘It has already begun.’ In Christ’s resurrection, the final harvest of bodily resurrection has become visible. He will argue that in some detail later in the chapter, particularly in 15:42-49.”

In having union with the resurrected Christ we as Christians because of our union with Christ likewise partake of His resurrection. This is explicitly taught in Ephesians

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

Because of our union with Christ, objectively we were made alive with Christ in His resurrection while subjectively this resurrection awaited our regeneration where the objective truth was published to our consciousness. And all this because as the Elect in Christ we were united with Christ from eternity.

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,

With this teaching that Christ’s resurrection is our resurrection because of our vital union with Christ we see that even though Christ’s resurrection lies in the past, because His resurrection is organically related to our future resurrection we can say that the past resurrection of our great Captain, the Lord Jesus Christ, lies still in the future. Christ’s resurrection is the initial part of the eschatological harvest of the resurrection of the saints at the end of history and because of our union with Christ His resurrection has entered into history because Christians are partakers of Christ’s eschatological life. With Christ’s resurrection, the age to come is operational in this present wicked age, through those who have been, because of union with Christ, been raised up with Christ.

A couple implications here. If this is accurate (and it is) then the whole idea of the errant theology of “full Preterism” comes crashing down. Full Preterism teaches that bodily resurrection of the saints is already past and that the age to come has already arrived, not only in an inaugurated sense, but in all its fullness. For the full Preterist (at least some variants. They argue among themselves) there is no “not yet.” All there is for them is realized eschatology. I have even had one of their teachers tell me that while the person will be resurrected his body will not be resurrected. This thinking breaks the chain of logic that unites Christ’s bodily resurrection with His people’s bodily resurrection.

Secondly, given this explanation we should understand that given the tight relation between Christ’s resurrection and the believers future resurrection that we are not talking about two different events here but rather are talking about one event though separated by a time lapse. Christ’s resurrection and our resurrection is of one piece and really is the same event.

So, Christ’s resurrection was the firstfruits of our resurrection to follow but that firstfruits, because of its union with the rest of the harvest, was, in principle, the resurrection of the whole crop. Since our great Liege Lord has been resurrected and since we have union with our great Captain we Christians experience now the inaugurated resurrection life that is itself promissory of the fact that what we live now as inaugurated will one day be completely realized in the future as we, as latter day fruit, follow the firstfruits into God’s presence. This, of course, means that we in Christ are living, in an inaugurated sense, in the future age to come while living at the same time in this present wicked age. 

Dr. Richard Gaffin On Eschatology … Rev. Bret McAtee on Dr. Richard Gaffin

“This period between Christ’s resurrection and return, the period of the church, is distinctively and essentially eschatological; it is, in fact, as we have see, a phase in the coming of the eschatological kingdom. That kingdom significance of the church is apparent by reading Mt. 16:18-19, in the light of the great commission (28:19-20); the keys of the kingdom are to the doors of the church.”

Richard Gaffin
In The Fullness of Time — p.80

On the whole I agree w/ this quote by Gaffin but there is something subtle here that is going on that I do not agree with in the least. You will note, if you read carefully, that what Dr. Gaffin is doing here is that he is compressing into one reality the idea of the church and the Kingdom making those ideas to be synonymous.

I do quite agree that the times we live in — the times between Christ’s ascension and His return — are indeed eschatological times. Indeed, it can be rightly said that we have been living in the last days since the Ascension of Christ and the last days of the last days since Christ’s AD 70 judgment return. We wait only now for the final day. However, all of our living now is eschatological. The kingdom has come and while the fullness of the Kingdom awaits we, who have been united to Christ already have the fullness of the Kingdom in principle as we have died with Christ, been resurrected with Christ and are seated in the heavenlies (ascended) with Christ. The “not-yetness” of the kingdom should not eclipse the already and nowness of the kingdom. Like Tolkien’s elves in his trilogy we Christians live in two worlds. We live now in the age to come and yet we still live in this present wicked age.

Returning to the idea of church and kingdom we would note that while the Church is part of the kingdom the church is not the whole kingdom. The kingdom is expansive. An argument might be made that the Church is to the Kingdom what the hearth fire is to the home or what the armoury is to a battle but the kingdom is far more expansive and broad than the church. When we limit the kingdom so that it is exactly synonymous with the Church what we do is cut off the leavening power of the Christian message from every other area of life.

This is the difference between postmillennialism and amillennialism. Amills typically want to limit the kingdom to the church while postmills see a dynamic relationship between kingdom and church but do not limit the kingdom to be 100% identified only with the church.

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.