Review: Heaven Misplaced

August 12, 2008

In the words of that great theologian Roy Wood, “I wish it could be Christmas every day.”

Douglas Wilson describes Heaven Misplaced: Christ’s Kingdom on Earth, due to be released on December 16th, as “a small effort to get Christians to believe their Christmas carols year-round”, which is to say, to take seriously declarations like “He comes to make His blessings flow, far as the curse is found.” His thesis is that,

“the gospel will continue to grow and flourish throughout the world, more and more individuals will be converted, the nations will stream to Christ, and the Great Commission will finally be successfully completed. The earth will be as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. When that happens, generation after generation will love and serve the Lord faithfully. And then the end will come.”

I have had the privilege of listening to Pastor Wilson arguing in favour of postmillennialism, here in England at The Blenheim Lectures earlier in the year, and also via the interweb, in his Ascension Day sermon. Here, he draws together the strands of what he describes as ‘historical optimism’ in a highly accessible introduction. In this book, eschatological terminology is relegated to an appendix for the interested reader who wants to read more, and technical vocabulary in general is kept to a minimum, and what little there is is explained in brief footnotes. This, then, is a primer on postmillennialism – and more - for everyone from the newest Christian upwards.

While the eschatological landscape amongst conservative evangelicals here in England, in my experience at least, tends to be amillennial rather than (dispensational) pre-millennial, in contrast to the United States, we nevertheless share the gloomy expectation that this world is going to go from bad to worse before resurrection morning: this world is a kind of Vietnam out of which we need to be airlifted. Wilson recognises that he’s up against a challenge and asks his readers to suspend their disbelief as they read this book, as they would with, for example, The Lord of the Rings, and temporarily enter into the story of the future of the world he is telling. He describes what he is doing, not so much as systematic theology, but ‘lyrical theology’: his aim is to show how lovely postmillennialism is. Does that mean, therefore, that there is no robust, Biblical basis for what Wilson is advocating? By no means. Throughout this book, Wilson expounds key Old Testament promises in light of the way Christ and the Apostles used them, and deals with common objections, to show that postmillennialism is strongly grounded in the Scriptures. As Wilson concludes, “How wonderful it would all be if all this could be true. The best part of the story is, it is.”

Wilson’s vision is profoundly Christ-centred: Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension shape his optimism. In a similar vein to the Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright, Wilson offers a corrective to the widespread view of Christ’s resurrection that it means we get to go to heaven when we die, but history remains largely unchanged, and which is yet another product of our individualism: Christ’s resurrection is at the heart of history and is the firstfruits of our resurrection and the new creation itself. It is not the case that we live in a two-storey universe, where we live out our earthly lives down below and then spend eternity upstairs. Yes, when we die, we do go to heaven to be with the Lord, but at the second coming, Christ will return to the earth and transform it. In support of this, Wilson provides a helpful exegesis of Philippians 3.20-21: just as Philippi is a colony of Rome and the point of a colony isn’t that the people living there eventually get to go to the capital city, but that the colony is itself meant to be a centre for the expansion of the influence of the capital, so too the church is a colony of heaven, and while we get to visit the capital city, heaven, what we are waiting for is Christ’s arrival from the capital city to the colony, to transform it. Wilson rightly insists that the new creation is a complete transformation, but it is a transformation of this world, just as Christ rose again with the same (but glorified) body with which he died, and just as we will, like a seed growing into wheat. The ground of the hope Wilson expounds is the cross of Christ. He reminds that Christ came into the world not to condemn the world, but to save the world. Moreover, the cross, like the resurrection, has public ramifications, particularly for the powers of this world, for the crucifixion was a public event. Wilson argues from 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 that it topples the princes of this world and everything under their jurisdiction – the arts, sciences, politics and so on – so ‘preaching Christ and him crucified is as broad as the world’. Wilson wants us to have a full-orbed view of the atonement  – penal substitution, Christus Victor, Christ as example – which reflects Christ in all his offices, prophet, priest and king. Christ’s public death and resurrection have massive implications for justice: he is coming back to judge in righteousness, delivering those accused and victimised by the world as the falsely accused victim who has been raised from the dead. As the ascended Lord, Jesus Christ has been formally invested with all authority in heaven and on earth, before everyone must bow, human rulers and judges, all organisations and countries. Moreover, Christ’s kingship is what we are to proclaim. The Great Commission doesn’t give Jesus authority, it declares the authority he already has and summons people to repend and believe in him. Christ reigns until all his enemies are subdued and the last enemy to be destroyed is death (1 Corinthians 15.25-26). Only once all opposition has ended will death be destroyed, and then the end will come. Jesus is the example we are to follow, and Jesus teaches us that by going to the back of the line as he does, we get to go to the head of the line – the chief seats – and so we are not to be so holy as to refuse the promotion when it comes, nor are we to strive directly for those highest positions.

Wilson describes for us the shape that Christ’s kingdom takes – it starts small and gradually fills the whole earth (Matthew 13.31-32, Daniel 2.44-45. In answer to the objection that the Bible says the way of salvation is narrow, an objection I myself have heard on a number of occasions, Wilson points us to Luke 13.22-30 and its context, in which the narrow gate refers to the salvation of the Jews in the first century, followed by the streaming in of the Gentiles. Christ makes a similar point about the salvation of a small remnant of Jews and of a large number of Gentiles elsewhere – Matthew 21.43 and Matthew 8.11, for example. Moreover, it is the salvation of the ends of the earth that was on Christ’s mind as he died: he quotes Psalm 22, the Psalm which in the first half is a prayer to God in the face of derision and suffering for deliverance, and in the second is a cry of faith that he will be delivered, and as a result, the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord. Wilson also offers us a helpful reminder abut what is happening on the cross. In fathoming out the mechanics of the atonement, we often hear accounts of the cross which describe how the Trinity was somehow ruptured at the cross. This is problematic to say the least. As Wilson points out, Christ being forsaken by the Father ‘is not to say that the Trinity unraveled [sic], but rather that the unbroken fellowship between God and his incarnate Son was disrupted.’ Through the cross, Christ has conquered the world.

Pastor Wilson exhibits no exegetical trickery in establishing his position. I was at the Proclamation Trust’s Cornhill Summer School three years ago, where Christopher Ash told us when we look at Old Testament passages, we interpret them in the light of the way the apostles understood them, and where a New Testament passages quotes or alludes to an Old Testament passage, we should take into account the Old Testament context. On this basis, Wilson reminds us that the Old Testament promises don’t merely await future fulfilment, but that they began to be fulfilled with the coming of Christ. On the basis of Psalm 2, we know that following Christ’s resurrection, the Father invited him to ask for them and he owns all the nations now, as the Great Commission testifies. Moreover, the implication of the concluding appeal of Psalm 2 is for the world’s political rulers to become Christians. The way the New Testament uses Psalm 110 proclaims Christ’s present princely rule. In addition, the radical peace and worldwide knowledge of the Lord as the nations stream to Christ in the gospel age is established by the way Paul applies Isaiah 11.9-10. Indeed, this is one example of what was particularly thrilling for me when reading through this book: the logic of Wilson’s unfolding argument mirrored time and again the discoveries I made myself in my own reading of Scripture. This was also the case with the gradual increase of Christ’s government and of peace in this world from the time when he was born (Isaiah 9). Wilson also deals with issues arising from New Testament apocalyptic, in the gospels and in Revelation, making a convincing case for preterism, i.e. that a straightforward literal reading of Matthew 24 describes the events of AD 70 and a right understanding of the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven – it is about the authority with which he is invested at his ascension and subsequently exercises. Language about the sun beng darkened, the moon not giving its light, stars falling from heaven, refers to God’s judgement on nations and cities, like Babylon and Edom (Isaiah 13.10, 34.4). The point in Matthew 24 and its parallels is that Jerusalem, too, will be judged for its sin. Wilson also makes a good case for an early dating of Revelation, following clearly events in the Roman Empire, with Nero as the beast, and Jerusalem the whore of Babylon.

As Pastor Wilson concludes his book, he issues a rallying call to the church. In light of the cultural mandate of the opening chapters of Genesis, and its reiteration after the Fall and its restoration in Christ, we are not to shirk our responsibility to exercise dominion in this world or abuse it to lord it over this world, but to exercise godly dominion in Christ. To this end, we need to divest ourselves of the ghetto mentality which believes that the secular state is unconquerable and that we must escape from our responsibilities and be saved from this world, but also of the mentality that wants Christ to be a player at the table of ’secular democracy’. Wilson invites a high view of the church indeed: the new humanity God is creating in Christ, the future of the human race, in which the image of God is being restored. She is a mother, the mother of cities, cities which are planted where the word and sacraments are ministered. He therefore summons us to faith in God’s promises in Scripture (for faith is required for a right understanding of Scripture) for ourselves.

Concerns I have heard raised about postmillennialism is that it is a theology of glory, or that it encourages the view that humanity can gradually make progress towards a better world under its own steam, or that it fails to give due attention to this world corrupted by sin, or even that it is universalism. Those charges simply will not stick to the position Pastor Wilson is advocating. He is gospel-centred throughout. The ground for the glorious vision he describes is the cross of Christ, and it is brought about through the preaching of the word. It is clear Wilson thinks that the kingdom will advance through opposition: “The victory of this kingdom is still watered by the blood of the martyrs, figuratively and literally: the way of the cross is still the only way to enduring glory.” indeed he encourages us to reflect whether the relative lack of opposition we are facing at the moment is a result of compromise:

   “If God grants a genuine reformation, it will be one like that which was granted in the sixteenth century, and the most obvious common feature it will share with that earlier reformation will be that it challenges the rulers of this age. No greaster indictment of the contemporary church than this can be found: the secular state is operating on all cylinders, and yet for the most part, the Christian pulpit remains a safe place to be.
   “More pastors ought to wonder about this. Shouldn’t ministers and churches be more concerned than they are about the lack of opposition they are facing? And shouldn’t they be willing to consider if it isn’t the result of diluting the message. It is possible to talk about the final judgment and the lordship of Jesus Christ in such a way that makes it clear that He is only lord over those areas that secularists are frankly happy to let Him have – the afterlife for example. Who cares if Jesus is Lord in ways that never make any difference at all?”

And Wilson is no universalist:

“This must not be taken to mean that every last human being who ever lived will finally be saved. Our Lord’s teaching on the terrible nature of everlasting fire excludes that option. So the fact that Christ will save the world does not mean that He will save every last individual who ever lived in it… Every Bible believer must reject the universalism that denies the awful reality of the final judgment for unbelievers.”

This book, then, is a robust, Scripturally-rooted exposition of the Christian hope that takes into account God’s promises in the Bible and the very public ramifications of Christ’s public death and resurrection. This is a hope which gives great confidence for the future of this world before the Lord Jesus returns, and after, and which will be realised, unlike the kingdoms of this world by humble faith, walking the way of Christ, trusting his promises and preaching his gospel. This is challenging reading, which should cause evangelicals to reconsider assumptions with which we have grown up in the light of Scripture, but with this book, Pastor Wilson lights a lamp which dispels much of our current eschatological gloom and galvanises the church to work in the power of the Spirit to see Christ’s present reign over all things acknowledged in this world, throughout this world. He succeeds in describing with clarity and vigour a vision which is altogether lovely.

52 Responses to “Review: Heaven Misplaced”

  1. Brooke Says:

    Amen. I love like the connection between the postmillennial vision and Christmas every day.

    Getting a dose of postmillennialism is also like having a bucket of cold water dumped over your head on a hot day. It both refreshes, and jolts you out of apathy.

  2. Tuppy Says:

    Interesting. I certainly love the idea; and think that Wilson’s emphasis of Christ as total lord, genuine King of kings, genuine Lord of lords, not just in some airy way, in his Blenheim lectures, is extremely good, and long missed.

    However, I have a couple of concerns about postmillenialism and the odd turn of late against other views, which here – and in N T Wright – largely emphasise the physical realm, apparently against some fear or belief in gnosticism creeping back.

    But St Paul advises “we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

    Further, on a related point, and which perhaps more directly troubles Wilson’s case: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thess, 2:3)

    I know there are marvellous, wonderful passages in St Paul particularly which can feel dead without a lively faith in their actually, totally (not just nebulously) coming true. But I guess my point would be – how do we square this with the constant calls to hate the world, and to compose ourselves precisely as if we *are* in Vietnam? “Put on the full armour of God…” And how do we square it with St Paul’s other note on the falling away?

    Just because we wish it true, it doesn’t make it so. Indeed the wishes, no matter how fond, of man, are more often confounded by the actual unrolling of God’s plan, than confirmed (think of the Jewish hope in a kind of Schwarzennegger Messiah).

  3. Tuppy Says:

    I don’t know why the end of my 2 Cor bracket has produced a sunglass-wearing lemon, but it’s nothing to do with me.


  4. To be against Postmillennialism, or so it seems to me, is to believe — what? — that Jesus came, announced the Kingdom is here, and then the Kingdom began to shrink! No, I think the Bible tells us otherwise. Hope you visit our site and comment — TheAmericanView.com.

    John Lofton, Editor

    JLof@aol.com

  5. Tuppy Says:

    I think that’s a stupid, and a deliberately stupid, understanding of anti-postmillenialists. How has the Kingdom ever shrunk below 11 disciples? It never has done. If that’s what you think they believe, go away and read them. Their critique is far more serious than that; and it is a mark of someone, or some belief, on terribly thin ground, if all it has to offer is perverse misinterpretations of its opponents.

  6. Pete Says:

    Some thoughts:

    There’s nothing wrong with things that are physical, temporal, material etc. They’re good. (we all agree on this already surely?)

    But the christian must be careful not to idolise these things, or make the pursuit of them their all-consuming goal. In particular, the reality of a new creation (which will be physical, temporal, material etc.) of untold blessing in God’s presence relativises and gives perspective on the enjoyment of the creation as it currently stands. Why spend our lives trying to gain everything we can in this creation at the expense of enjoying the new?

    Rather, the Christian can enjoy the benefits of creation as given by the Creator (in fact, only the Christian can truly enjoy the benefits of the creation as intended, since only the Christian knows the Creator). This means (in part at least) viewing them as the good gifts of the Triune God, to be enjoyed, shared, but not lusted after, nor elevated to god-status. This also means (again, in part at least) not grumbling when the sovereign, good Creator God causes the Christian to lack material goods in the here and now. And it also means viewing them as hints, foretastes, of the goodness and blessing of the (consummated) new creation. It certainly means using physical and material blessings and resources as kingdom resources (so, sharing/ giving/ investing in gospel work etc.).

    Our ‘wartime mentality’ can’t possibly be intended to deny the goodness of the very creation we’re warring over (and our Commander-in-chief died to redeem). Whatever hating the world means it doesn’t mean hating creation.

    I guess the problems come for some people though in the fact that p’mills believe that worldwid gospel conversion will bring (eventually, as things work themselves out over the generations) increased levels of some material/physical benefits – longer lifespans, decreased world poverty and increased prosperity, for example. How do these things fit with the ‘wartime mentality’ texts? I guess I don’t ultimately see the conflict here though, since the war goes on anyway (the flesh, the devil, the world, all remain till the end in the postmill vision), and the christian must still relativise the importance and significance of blessing in the here and now in the light of eternity in all the ways many of us (who, let’s face it, are affluent, healthy etc. as it is) should do now anyway, as I’ve all-too briefly sketched above.

    The same basic theological problem is there anyway, whether postmill or not, as soon as we start to think things like being a christian will be beneficial for my marriage, or help me be a better dad, or help me be a better employee. Sure, there’d be something wrong if we didn’t hate our family if allegiance to Jesus required it, or if we hung our hopes for the future on promotion, or if we weren’t prepared to be fired/divorced/the most unpopular parent in the world for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ. But surely no-one wants to deny that the gospel transforms (not totally, but in a real, limited, and progressive way) these areas of life? Or that, in the home thus blessed by the gospel (e.g. with a father who no longer blows his giro on alcohol but is able to buy the children some new shoes) that they’ve lost sight of eternity or indeed the job (war) in hand?

    And, once that’s been conceded, then one can at least begin to understand how postmills, who believe in mass global conversion and generations of faithfulness, envisage a number of socio-economic blessing resulting. And hey presto, maybe it’s even predicted in scripture too (Isa 65 anyone?).

  7. Pete Says:

    btw, Daniel, I am sooo jealous. How come u got an advanced copy for reviewing?

    (not that jealousy over someone else’s books is a good and godly use of the blessings of this creation, ahem, sorry)

  8. Daniel Newman Says:

    I echo Pete’s comments, and I just have a few thoughts on the passages Tuppy quoted.

    I think from the preceding context of 2 Corinthians 4, the transient things that are seen which are being contrasted with the eternal things that are unseen seem to be referring the momentary afflictions that he sees all around him, rather than the physical world per se.

    Our hatred of the world isn’t hatred of the material in and of itself, but in its sin and rebellion against God.

    I haven’t thought through this in too much detail, but I’ll throw it out there: could 2 Thessalonians 2 be talking about AD 70? It certainly has the same ideas as Matthew 24 – apostasy, lawlessness, things being set up in the temple, false signs and wonders, gathering (through the gospel).

    Pete, to satisfy your covetousness, have a look at the Canon Press weblog: http://thecafe.canonpress.org/blog/

  9. Richard Says:

    Sounds like it could be quite interesting.


  10. [...] Posted August 14, 2008 Filed under: Book reviews | Tags: Book review, Newman | Check out Daniel’s review of Heaven Misplaced. Though most Christians refrain from predicting exactly when our world will [...]

  11. Tuppy Says:

    Oh. Groan.

    Not AD 70 again.


  12. AD70 ADShmeventy. What’s so important about it? Why are the neo-reformed (for so I will label the new paedobaptist postmill crowd) so excited about AD70?

    Is it because they’re more excited about the Old Testament than they ought to be? Calvinus judaizans?


  13. And more seriously…

    “this world is a kind of Vietnam out of which we need to be airlifted”

    That is a fairly serious caricaturing of the amill, or even (non-disp) premill, view of eschatology. You don’t have to be postmill to believe in strong continuity between this creation and the new creation, or in the relevance of working hard at Christian engagement with culture etc. Now is amill/premill eschatology gloomy or hopeless as you seem to assume: it is joyful and full of hope because Jesus is coming back!

    Please be very wary of engaging with a straw man: you will always win, but you won’t learn anything.


  14. That would be more intelligible if I had typed ‘nor’ rather than ‘now’ in the second to last sentence.

  15. Pete Says:

    Daniel B., you are absolutely right about straw men. You don’t necessarily need to be postmill to believe the things you outline in your comment.

    As for AD70, Jesus thought it was pretty important, as did the apostolic church. The destruction of the temple is an absolutely massive event in terms of biblical theology. Whilst it is not anywhere near as significant as the cross-resurrection-ascenscion of Christ, nor indeed Christ’s second coming, surely the public declaration of judgment upon Old Israel, and the vindication of Christ (and the Church in him) as the New/True Israel.

    Thinking that the new testament might talk every now and then about the final sweeping aside of the buildings and institutions of the mosaic order is hardly to have an unhealthy hankering for the OT. Rather, AD70 is bound up with the very themes that dominate the NT – the inclusion of the gentiles, judgment on apostate israel, Christ replacing and fulfilling the temple-system.

    Finally, paedobaptism and postmillenialism hardly warrant the label neo-reformed, since both of those beliefs have a considerable pedigree within the history of reformed orthodoxy. While labels aren’t the be-all and end-all, we might as well try and make them historically and theologically meaningful.

  16. Pete Says:

    On the vietnam quote, I presume Daniel N. was generalising about the kind of a-millenialism that characterises british evangelicalism (is that correct?). In which case I think as a generalisation it holds fairly well.

    What’s more, the pessimism ascribed to amillenial and premillenial views is usually with regard to the historical progress of the gospel, in which regard I think it is fair to say there is something inherently pessimistic in those positions, since by definition they don’t accept the most basic premise of postmillenialism – that the gospel will convert the vast majority of humanity to Christ prior to his return. This of course, does not mean that all premills are pessimistic about absolutely everything.

    That said, I think us postmills need to take care that we don’t let our excitement at having (recently, for most of us I guess) discovered the gospel optimism taught in the scriptures dwarf our passion for the consummation of all things, and the infinite eternal joy of life in Christ’s very presence at his return. All shades of millenialists ought to be able to unite in placing our ultimate hope in that day.

  17. Daniel Newman Says:

    The last time I checked, AD70 came in the New Testament era. And for what it’s worth, I think it’s impossible to get more excited about the Old Testament than we ought to be. As Jesus said, these are the Scriptures that testify about him.

    The thing about this world being a kind of Vietnam out of which we need to be airlifted is Wilson’s comment on a pessimistic view of the future of this world, which characterises both dispensational pre-millennialism and some amillennialism, too. Even if your eschatology is brighter, Daniel, this really isn’t a straw man. People believe it. As Pete says, it characterises a fair amount of British (and dare I say, Australian) evangelicalism, in my experience. I agree with Pete’s comments about the significance of AD 70 and the honoured place
    paedobaptist postmillennialists have amongst Reformed Christians.


  18. Okay, okay, I was sort of joking about the ‘neo-reformed’ thing, and even somewhat joking about high regard for the OT, although I do wonder whether there is an exegetical question about whether you read the NT through the OT or vice versa. But none of that was entirely serious.

    The serious question is about optimism/pessimism, and Pete highlights and warns against my great fear with the new interest in postmill (which, I acknowledge, is a historically prevalent position):

    “That said, I think us postmills need to take care that we don’t let our excitement at having (recently, for most of us I guess) discovered the gospel optimism taught in the scriptures dwarf our passion for the consummation of all things, and the infinite eternal joy of life in Christ’s very presence at his return. All shades of millenialists ought to be able to unite in placing our ultimate hope in that day.”

    That is right, and my fear has been (and still is) that people are getting so excited about the prospects of the gospel transforming the world that they are now looking forward to that more than they are looking forward to seeing the Lord. The main thing – the substance of Christian hope – is “we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”. We shall see him! How could anything that terminates with “we shall see HIM” be pessimistic? And as for the renewal of culture/society/creation, think about it: if a child is told ‘you can have ice-cream when daddy comes home’, they haven’t received bad news (I can’t have it til he gets here! Boo!) but good news (I get ice cream!) – and I think the situation is analagous: we get a renewed creation when Jesus comes back – huzzah!

    Also note, the problem with creation now is sin, which even on the most ‘optmistic’ postmill view won’t be done away with until the Man comes around. I can’t get excited about the postmill vision, because the transformation I long for is primarily the cutting out from me of that tendency to sin. Again, “we shall be LIKE HIM, for we shall SEE HIM as he is”.

    I rest my case.

  19. Daniel Newman Says:

    ‘I do wonder whether there is an exegetical question about whether you read the NT through the OT or vice versa.’ Surely the answer to that question is, “Yes.”

    I agree that our ultimate hope is resurrection and new creation. Absolutely. Amen. Preach it, brother. But sanctification is a process which happens in the present. I have the Holy Spirit living within me. I trust that I will be more like Jesus when I die than I was when I was baptised. The church has the Holy Spirit working in her. I take it that, ten thousand years from now, the church will be more Christ-like than she was in the first century A.D., more unified, more mature, more loving. And I take it that the same applies to the world in which God is at work, by his Spirit, through the church. I refuse not to get excited by that. To use a slightly different analogy, I get to eat cake when Daddy comes home. But in the meantime, Mummy and I get to make cake while we wait for him and I get to lick the bowl and enjoy the smell of the cake cooking, and that doesn’t take away from the joy of actually getting to eat the cake eventually. And when Daddy comes back, he’s going to do something with the cake to make it unbelievably delicious.

  20. Brooke Says:

    hurray for the already not yet.

  21. Pete Says:

    Daniel B, you said

    ‘I can’t get excited about the postmill vision, because the transformation I long for is primarily the cutting out from me of that tendency to sin.’

    But, surely, you get excited when the gospel is proclaimed, when people respond in bowing the knee to Christ, when you and others around you grasp some aspect of truth and put it into action? And surely you get excited at the prospect and hope and expectation of these things happening?

    The difference between this and the postmillenial thing is quantitative (the number of times that these things are expected to happen between now and the end ) not qualitative. I suggest the reason you can’t get excited by the postmillenial vision is not because of the reason you cite (since postmillenialism allows you to continue to long for the consummation along with the rest of creation), but because you don’t think the bible teaches it. And that’s fine, I can’t get excited by things I don’t think the bible teaches either.

    ‘…and my fear has been (and still is) that people are getting so excited about the prospects of the gospel transforming the world that they are now looking forward to that more than they are looking forward to seeing the Lord.’

    That’s a valid fear, and indeed it is a danger for those who’ve recently discovered postmillenialism, just as there is a danger that those who’ve just discovered calvinism will spend all their time trying to convert arminians to calvinism. But, having said that, I don’t know of one single postmillenialist who has actually fallen into this trap. I obviously don’t know many postmills, but I guess I do have a fairly decent perspective on its (tiny, tiny-scale) mini-resurgence amongst UK conservative evangelical types at this present time.

    Thus, I suspect, so long as your fear in this regard is channeled as brotherly concern and not paranoia, any postmills worth their salt would welcome it.

  22. Tuppy Says:

    Oh gawsh. This is all sickly and useless. We do not measure truth by how excited it makes us, nor do we compare the Majesty of the Everlasting God and the unrolling of his inscrutable providence with scoffing cake!

  23. Pete Says:

    Tuppy said;

    ‘We do not measure truth by how excited it makes us…’

    I wasn’t aware anyone was doing that.

  24. Tuppy Says:

    It’s there in many things people are saying. It’s there in the Christmas remark. It’s there in you and Dan B disputing not over Scripture – but how excited your respective positions make you.

    The postmillenialist argument is often a total non sequitur along the lines of ‘wouldn’t this be cool if it was true? Therefore it’s true’. Yes, the gospel is good news – the very definition of it – so I don’t begrudge enthusiasm for your vision of it; it is natural in all Christians, p-m, pre-m, a-m or whatever. But no. No. We do not want it to be Christmas every day: for the Church has a Calendar, and there is a Time, as St Paul says, for everything, there are diverse seasons, it is all part of God’s glory, and attests to it more devoutly than any infinite Christmas or other disastrously simplistic ideas. For we have put away childish things.

    If you weren’t aware anyone was doing that, not even yourself, you clearly weren’t paying attention, which is a shame.

    As for Dan’s remark about the Church getting more Christ-like as the decades past, just like true Christians do, the analogy doesn’t hold – for the Church is handed on generationally, the Church Militant must always be comprised of men and women who are in the midst of that process of improvement, life to life. In case you hadn’t noticed, the people in the pews change from century to century. If we only ever had the same people, what you say would be correct. But only then. As it is, we are a chain, and only as strong as the links. It is dangerous to forget this, and essential to remember it.

    As it is, things decline, things fall apart – unless righteous men of God stand in the gap, and by God’s grace and will, with the aid of the Holy Ghost, through the Preaching of the Gospel, turn back the tide. Subscribing to a belief which says no matter what, victory is inevitable, is liable to play down the compact God has made with man in achieving this his Will, and dissuade ready, prompt action. It comforts the timid. It is the Christian equivalent of the sozzled old middle class Hampstead Heath Communist, clad in Che t-shirts and Ray-Ban sunglasses, and sustained by invincible confidence in the inevitable triumph of the coming proletariat dictatorship, meanwhile playing on his Xbox and smoking drugs.

    “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)

    This is our challenge.

  25. Pete Says:

    Tuppy, I’d recommend you re-read my discussion with Daniel B. I think you’ll find excitement is not being used as a measure of truth. For e.g. Daniel B argues that he couldn’t get excited about postmillenialism because of the issue of sin’s presence until Christ’s return. In my reply I wanted to suggest that it was not this that was the problem, but rather the fact that Daniel doesn’t believe the scriptures teach postmillenialism, hence why I said ‘I can’t get excited by things I don’t think the bible teaches either.’ In both of our comments, theology is driving the issue of excitement, not the other way round.

    I can’t comment on the christmas quote as I didn’t write it. But, as you say, there’s nothing wrong with excitement in its proper place. I’m not aware Daniel N. is saying we should all be postmillenialists simply because it is an exciting idea.

    On belief in victory promoting inactivity: I don’t see it like this, nor would any self-respecting calvinist. God uses means to fulfill his plans and promises. What’s more, no postmill I know of believes that the progress of the gospel will be linear in all places and at all times. Victory in our particular circumstances in the short and medium term is not therefore guaranteed. Only over the long haul (and I mean long).

    On the church getting more Christ-like: I think advances in theology and therefore in ethics across history have happened and will continue to. Again, the progress won’t be linear etc. I think we’ll eventually reach much more real, visible unity in the faith than we have now, for example.

  26. Daniel Newman Says:

    I often think to myself that evangelicals need to get a sense of humour. There is, after all a time to laugh (Ecclesiastes 3.4).

    So quoting Roy Wood wishing it were Christmas every day was an amusing allusion to popular culture which as I elaborated was intended to convey a desire that Christians take seriously all the time the hope they sing and read about at Christmastime – the salvation of the whole world through Christ’s incarnation and work.

    The logic of what Wilson is saying isn’t:
    1. Wouldn’t this be cool if it were true?
    2. Therefore it is true

    But:
    1. Wouldn’t this be cool if it were true?
    2. So at least listen to my case.
    3. See, there are loads of Biblical reasons for it.
    4. Therefore it is true.

    And it is worth getting excited about it, and sharing our excitement with others.

    The handing down of the church generationally (an aspect of its catholicity) has, I think, the opposite conclusions to the one you suggest, Tuppy (although looking down the pews, sometimes I wonder if the occupants do actually change from century to century*). If we are faithful to the Biblical picture of covenantal nurture and succession, then the next generation will be brought up trusting and obeying the Lord, and learning from the mistakes of their forefathers:

    He established a testimony in Jacob
    and appointed a law in Israel,
    which he commanded our fathers
    to teach to their children,
    that the next generation might know them,
    the children yet unborn,
    and arise and tell them to their children,
    so that they should set their hope in God
    and not forget the works of God,
    but keep his commandments;
    and that they should not be like their fathers,
    a stubborn and rebellious generation,
    a generation whose heart was not steadfast,
    whose spirit was not faithful to God. – Psalm 78.5-8

    Confidence in the future success of the gospel nerves the present generation for faithfulness and action. Any doctrine can be perverted by sinful men. The problem isn’t with gospel confidence. The problem is with sinners who use that as an excuse for complacency.

    And I defend my cake-baking analogy. Jesus saw fit to compare the Majesty of the Everlasting God and the unrolling of his inscrutable providence with the lowly image of a Father giving his child a loaf of bread or a fish: I fail to see how it is can be anything but honouring to God to consider one aspect of Christian experience as analogous to a child being brought up in a loving family enjoying the gifts of God’s creation, all of which, after all are good and holy and not to be rejected if they are received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4.3-4).

    ———
    * a joke.

  27. Tuppy Says:

    Have you guys actually been in the average church of late? Have you seen most church pews in Oxford? They are mostly empty, converted into pubs, or filled with people who cannot say the creed without their fingers crossed through most of it. St Ebbes and Aldates, after all, have most of their congregations (students) by dint of most of the University chapels being filled with homosexuals and heretics.

    If this is progress, it’s time to turn the clock back.

    We are in deadly, deadly trouble right now, and I think the super-optimism and blind long-term hope which defines p-m (i.e. it’ll happen, we’re sure, but of course over a long, long time, and we’ll never see it) is but the insane laughter of a condemned man. Just before the lights go out, and Old Christendom is snuffed out, and darkness falls upon the once holy places of the world, and evil fills the minds of the once holy people – and the wages of all that sin begins to be paid upon us in the most deadly clockwork – just before all that, before everything once-Christian around us is dead in its sins, in a kind of desperate denial of reality, rather than practical defensive measures, comes forth post-millenialism. Just when Christianity is being defeated every day, people start rejoicing that it is winning. THIS IS MAD. It is understandable. But it is utterly mad.

    N T Wright talks of establishing the kingdom here on earth, and p-ms are assured it shall happen no matter what. But look about you! The kingdom in England is ransacked, looted and burning. If we don’t act swiftly, in prayer and deed, the whole thing will crumble for a thousand years or more.

  28. Richard Says:

    Tuppy,

    Do you believe “Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Yes! Fantastic!! Let’s then unite in praying that in faith, and working towards it by worshipping God, supporting Gospel work, giving charitably, and living sanctified lives etc.

    Let us humble ourselves, and pray that God pour out his Spirit upon this nation and revive it. Is that not your hearts desire? It’s certainly mine.

    O Sing unto the Lord a new song : for he hath done marvellous things.
    With his own right hand, and with his holy arm : hath he gotten himself the victory.
    The Lord declared his salvation : his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen.
    He hath remembered his mercy and truth toward the house of Israel : and all the ends of the world have seen the salvation of our God.
    Shew yourselves joyful unto the Lord, all ye lands : sing, rejoice, and give thanks.
    Praise the Lord upon the harp : sing to the harp with a psalm of thanksgiving.
    With trumpets also and shawms : O shew yourselves joyful before the Lord the King.
    Let the sea make a noise, and all that therein is : the round world, and they that dwell therein.
    Let the floods clap their hands, and let the hills be joyful together before the Lord : for he is come to judge the earth.
    With righteousness shall he judge the world : and the people with equity.

  29. Neil Jeffers Says:

    Tuppy,

    Have you been in the average church in Nigeria or China lately? Your pessimism (understandable) is rather Euro-centric. The Church of God worldwide is going from strength to strength.

    Note Pete’s point that postmills are not claiming smooth, linear progression. Certainly we’re on the back foot big time in England and Western Europe, and who knows how long for?

    I’m amazed that, even in our desperate situation, you could write about Christianity being defeated every day! The gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ’s church, so I don’t think there’s much to fear from New Labour, Stonewall, the EU, or even the Chinese Politburo.

  30. Liam Beadle Says:

    A slight tangent, but an important one:

    It strikes me that the truth is beautiful; and, therefore, the more exciting a doctrine, the more likely it is to be true. That does not, of course, mean that every idea which is beautiful is true, but no one ever said that.

    As for most Oxford college chapels ‘being filled with homosexuals and heretics’:

    (a) this is not, in my experience, true (the majority of chaplains are orthodox affirming catholics or open evangelicals);

    (b) gay and lesbian people are people, too, and should, therefore, be welcome in college chapels; and

    (c) if college chapels were places where honest questioning and rigorous debate were not to be found, there’d be something very wrong somewhere.

    I write not only as a former chapel clerk in an Oxford college (S. Peter’s), but also as a former member of S. Ebbe’s, and I have a fond regard for the ministries of both.

  31. Tuppy Says:

    As for beauty = truth…

    “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt 7:15)

    As for the rest: I should let it be known that I prefer gospel optimism to anything else (though am not too hot on compacting the millennium into it, nor on affixing Revelations to AD70 – which is a cop-out first introduced by distinctly heretical liberals in the late 19th century). I do think things will go well. But I do not think they will do so without devout, serious prayer and sacrifice. Nothing will be automatic. Nothing is to be taken for granted. “WILL THE SON OF MAN FIND FAITH ON THE EARTH WHEN HE RETURNS?” Christendom has shrunk, expanded, and is shrinking and expanding again, all at the same time. It shrinks where it is faithless, and expands where it is faithful.

    I see little to be optimistic about in AIDS-ridden, sex-mad, murderous, perverted Africa. I see much more to be optimistic about in China.

    But never forget that once all Israel, Egypt, and much of the Middle East was Christian. Yet it went under darkness it has yet to emerge from. It will emerge, either before – or in – Christ’s judgement. But it is simply glib to be p-m in the face of that. And I do wonder how p-ms deal with the horrors of the 20th century. We have gone backwards, very far backwards. Things are only getting worse.

    I will never allow evil to have a double victory and turn me against good, but if I subscribe to a Whig model of religious history which at nearly every turn is confounded, and is dependent upon a get-out clause of an immense time-scale whenever it encounters a logical problem, I am liable to be looked upon as something of a loon.

    In short, why not be a gospel optimist instead of a gospel inevitablist? If p-m is the eschatological equivalent of Calvinism, where is your equivalent of the Protestant work ethic?

  32. Daniel Newman Says:

    Tuppy, I think you’ll find that Liam explicitly did not say that beauty = truth.

    I would also encourage you to re-read what everyone else is saying. We all agree that it is through faith and prayer and taking up the cross daily that Christ’s kingdom is advanced.

    As for Africa, I must say your comments are bang out of order (and wrong). The church is growing there and the Anglicans are starting new dioceses all the time (and not just in America). Moreover, by teaching Biblical ethics (abstinence outside of marriage), the rate of HIV transmission has dropped dramatically in Uganda. The poverty, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, the aftermath of civil wars are truly tragic, not something to be haughty about, and it should move our hearts to pray and to materially support the work of our brothers and sisters there, that in the power of the Spirit, God’s kingdom might come there.

    I also note that criticisms levelled in this discussion have left what are surely vital issues of Scriptural exegesis far, far behind.

  33. Tuppy Says:

    There is much evil in Africa. It is one of the most depraved places on Earth. All the worst horrors of a British tabloid front-page are daily casual acts there, and abound in the millions.

    There’s a reason they all got AIDs and cannot feed themselves. Anyone who has more than a passing interest in the situation will soon discover that it isn’t because of us, and to deny them the capability of being responsible in such a manner is essentially racist.

    We must not underestimate the depth of evangelism required there. Much of the Christianity appears to go no further down than the topsoil. It is in serious, serious trouble. It grieves my very soul.

  34. Pete Says:

    Tuppy, you said

    “…in a kind of desperate denial of reality, rather than practical defensive measures, comes forth post-millenialism.”

    Postmillenialism is not some kind of alternative to action, anymore than God’s sovereignty is an alternative to evangelism. As I said above, any self-respecting calvinist believes that the sovereign God uses means. Moreover, i know of not one single postmillenialist who is not engaged in the practical defence and aggressive proclamation of the the gospel within and outside of the church. If myself, or any other postmills have given you a false impression of this, I apologise, and ask you to be pleased to take my assurances of the contrary at face value. Alternatively, if this tension between postmillenialism and action is of your own making, then please do not keep beating away at this particular straw man.

  35. Tuppy Says:

    It’s of my own making, because I feel the temptation myself. I realise it is quite plain and laudable that Daniel doesn’t; but what of the weaker brethren?

  36. Tuppy Says:

    Further, I would say that post-millenialism is coming forth now, not necessarily instead of action, but in proportion to that action’s failure.


  37. I find it intriguing that Tuppy is concerned about postmill because he feels it could lead to inactivity, and I am concerned about it because I think it could lead to over-emphasis on the role of our activity in the redemptive process. Odd that.

  38. Pete Says:

    ‘…but what of the weaker brethren?’

    Just as we shouldn’t measure truth simply by beauty, neither should we measure it by risk of abuse/ misunderstanding. If that were the case we’d ditch sola gratia for danger of antinomianism, or ditch the trinity for the fear that the weaker brethren might become tritheists.

    In other words, postmills must be clear by word and deed that their eschatological views are in no way an excuse for inactivity, but rather the opposite.

  39. Tuppy Says:

    What of Christ’s challenge: “Will the son of man find faith on the earth when he returns?”

  40. Tuppy Says:

    You’re right, by the way, about the weaker brethren point.

    The largest point of my opposition remains the loopy-loo, nearly brand new AD70/Revelations junk. And the above challenge.

  41. Michael Dormandy Says:

    A quick question for Daniel N on eschatology. I am doing some talks on Isaiah 49-55 soon. I have a lot of sympathy with the view of Christopher Ash and (if I understand correctly) NT Wright that emphasises continuity between this creation and the renewed Rev 21 creation, a view Daniel N has advocated here extensively. This view must read the fire of 2 Pet 3 as a renewing, purifying fire rather than a destructive fire. What about Is 51:6? This seems to speak quite clearly of the present cosmos being destroyed.
    Not strictly millenial question I know, but related.

  42. Neil Jeffers Says:

    Tuppy,

    Can I recommend RC Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, on all the AD70 stuff. It’s readable, clear, shows the history of this sort of interpretation, notes the dangers of taking it to extremes (hyper-preterism), and is very persuasive. A number of sceptical friends I loaned it to were convinced.

    I was first convinced by Dick France’s commentaries on Mark 13 and Matthew 24, which I think are unanswerable (and which I think was Daniel’s first venture into the whole business).

    It seems to me Jesus’ challenge about finding faith in Lk 18 is a call to persistent prayer for all his disciples. I’m afraid I don’t see what relevance it has to millenial questions – istm it applies in the same way whether you are disp, pre, a, or post!

  43. Daniel Newman Says:

    Michael, thanks for your question. I agree with your assessment of 2 Peter 3. Regarding Isaiah 51.6, does it speak clearly of the present cosmos being destroyed? In verse three you have the renovation of the land – waste places and wilderness being made like Eden, desert becoming like the garden of the Lord. It seems to me that in verse six the Lord is contrasting the transience of the creation with the permanence of his own salvation and righteousness. After all, the picture is of the earth wearing out. It is not that the heavens go up in smoke (i.e. burnt up in judgment), but are smoke, i.e. fragile and disappearing. I think a similar thing is going on in the closing verses of Psalm 102, which I will be preaching on in a couple of weeks. All this could simply be part of the subjection of the creation to decay following the Fall.

    I hope that helps.

  44. Michael Dormandy Says:

    Daniel,
    Thank you. I agree with all you say, but I still think these textx make it hard to view the new creation as totally continuous with this one. I believe in a physical new creation absolutely, as portrayed in Rev 21 et al, but not that it is the same physical creation as this one, because, as you say, this heaven and earth are passing away, as Is 51:6 and Ps 102 teach. Therefore I am beginning to wander if 2 Pet 3 is best read with its most obvious reading, a destructive fire, after which God will create the new creation. Whilst I want to maintain that the new creation will be physical and in every good respect like this one, I’m not quite sure it will have physical continuity with this one. Even Rev 21:1 seems to teach this: John sees a new heaven and a new earth “for [ie because] the first heaven and the first earth had passed away [which presumably means destruction as described in 2 Pet 3]“.
    One of the best texts against the view I’ve outlined would be Rom 8:21 which speaks of the creation being liberated rather than destroyed, but you can argue it’s possible to think of creation being liberated from decay, by being destroyed and re-made.
    Any thoughts anyone?

  45. Pete Says:

    Michael,

    it’s very hard to argue as you say re. Romans 8:21 if there is no physical continuity between the new creation and this one.

    That said, I must admit to finding texts like Isa 51:6 difficult to understand. However,

    a. Whatever it means it can’t be contradicting Romans 8

    b. We could argue that Romans 8 is by far the clearer text, since Much prophetic literature is poetic and symbolic by nature. In this respect, we should be suspicious if we have to twist romans 8 to such a great degree to make it fit isa.

    c. The heavens and the earth function in very particular ways within biblical imagery, and are often used with reference to the humand and/or angelic government of the cosmos. For example, the King of Babylon is a star (Isa 14:12) who is going to fall, for when God judges Babylon he shakes the earth and the heavens (Isa 13:13). When God re-orders the word politically, governmentally or covenantally, it is described as the heavens and the earth being shaken (Hebrews 12, Haggai 2). In this regard we should note that the reproach/revilings of man (presumably the pagan nations, maybe even babylon) are also said to wear out like a garment in Isa 51:7-8. Perhaps (and it is a perhaps for me at the moment I must admit) the removal of the heavens and the earth are symbolic of judgment upon Babylon and/ other uling nations also. Rather than be troubled about them, Israel are to trust in God’s righteousness and salvation.

    d. And, to continue in the vein of c., we should note that when God creates the new heavens and earth in Isa 65:17ff., the vision is of a world in which there is still death, sinners, and the curse (see v20 in particular). This quite clearly is not the exact same new-creation event as depicted in Rev 21-22. If new creation language doesn’t always refer to cosmic renovation of the scale of Rev 21-22, then that strengthens the possibility that de-creation language doesn’t always have to be taken so literally either, but can refer to other ways in which God brings about a ‘new’ creation (covenantally, governmentally etc.).

  46. Michael Dormandy Says:

    Hmm, thanks Pete, this is helpful.
    I’m not a convinced post-mill yet, so d doesn’t quite convince me.
    Rom 8 is the only text I know of which seems at first sight clearly and explicitly to affirm physical continuity. We add to that two which deny it (Ps 102, Is 51:6) and a few which could go either way (eg Rev 21:1, 2 Pet 3, both of which most naturally deny). This would seem to justify me in reading Rom 8 as saying creation is liberated by destruction and re-creation, unnatural a reading as this may at first seem.

    I am still absolutely committed to a physical new creation, in which everything that is good in this creation is present, including physical matter; I’m just saying that physical matter will have been recreated. It’s been said that “the Grand canyon will be there in the new cr”. This I do not deny, nor do I deny that it will still be in America, nor that we’ll still be able to enjoy walking around it in our ressurected bodies. I’m just not sure it will be physically continuous will the grand can that is there now.

    In many ways, the position I’m suggesting is so similar to physical continuity as makes no difference. The difference between the positions is a bit like asking whether or not a car that has every individual part broken and replaced is still the same car as it was when first assembled in the factory and that is a question of interest only to philosophy students (I say having been one).

    This is not my convinced position, but I find the dialogue helpful.

  47. Daniel Newman Says:

    Michael, I think you might be misunderstanding me. When I commented on the transience and decay of the current creation, that it is wearing out, I was making the point that that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will cease to exist and will be replaced with something brand new, but that when Christ returns, it will be renewed, transformed into something that won’t perish, spoil or fade.

    With regard to Revelation 22, the new is neos not kainos which I am led to believe, in NT Greek at least, is new with regard to quality or character, rather than new from scratch. The former things passing away can simply mean that the former order of sin and death is no longer, without entailing complete destruction.

    Remember the Lord Jesus Christ: he rose again with the body he laid down, only transformed. He is the pattern for our resurrection bodies (1 Corinthians 15), which is bound up with the renewal of the cosmos (Romans 8 ) again.

    I like Pete’s suggestions, though. Worth more thought.

    Also, two words in the second sentence of your last post interest me immensely: “convinced” and “yet”.

  48. Pete Says:

    This is all pretty interesting.

    Michael, I’d love you to distinguish your view of the new creation from your view of the original creation. It strikes me that some of your comments and verses could just as easily be understood under the idea of ‘radical transformation/ renewal’ rather than a new creation ex nihilo. The original creation was made from absolutely nothing. Are you really saying that the new creation texts you cite demand a second ex nihilo creation to replace the current one? I just don’t think there are any texts that demand such a reading, and there are many that would contradict it.

    What’s more, the theological arguments for continuity are very strong, especially in Christ as the pattern of new creation (‘if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation’ after all!). Clearly our own resurrection will involve the same transformation and continuity, otherwise the sense in which ‘we’ have been redeemed is meaningless. Thus all the texts that speak of a saved cosmos in some way have enormous significance for this question. If the world is replaced then ‘it’ is not redeemed.

    Of course, physical continuity doesn’t deny great transformation. For one I’m still agnostic on the question of the extent of this transformation. For example, I wouldn’t argue with anyone over whether or not the grand canyon will be there, I’m just not sure. What I’m really sure of if that it is THIS creation that is re-made, God does not create a new world ex nihilo, but creates a new world out of this one. How much of what we can see and touch now by way of the shape and structure of things will be retained I just don’t know. For starters, there’s gonna be so many redeemed people that I think the planet might need to be a bit bigger than it is now anyway!

    I’ve posted a fair old bit about this general issue at my blog if you’re interested – follow the ‘new creation’ thread.

  49. Michael Dormandy Says:

    Is51:6. Daniel N, are you saying that this verse is saying not that the heavens and earth are going to be destroyed, but that they’re impermanent and unstable compared to the everlasting nature of God’s salvation. I think the only way you could make this stick is to say that Isaiah is alluding to the fact that, if God is left out of the picture, even stars and planets will be destroyed: I am told that in a few thousand or million years, our star will go supernova and destroy planet earth. However I don’t think this can have been part of Isaiah’s thought world.

    Rev 21. What’s your authority for the lexicography? To my memory, Carey Gilbart-Smith, my Cornhill Grk teacher who has studied classical and NT for many years, says there’s no difference between the two except that “neos2 can also mean “young, recent”. In which case Rev 21 might mean that the creation is literally becoming “young”, ie as it was in its innocent, youth, pre-Genesis 3. An exciting thought! However, the “new” in my text (British and froeign Bible soc, 1958) is “kainos”. I’ll check the up to date Nestle-Aland at home.

    I take Pete’s point about the folly of dogmatism about things like seeing the grand canyon. I suppose all I meant was that the grand canyon is here in this creation and its beauty brings its creator glory, so I assume it will still be there.

    I agree the systematic arguments in favour of continuity are convincing. Our own res bodies, like Jesus’, will clearly be continuous and not recreated ex nihilo. This implies a degree of physical continuity for the rest of the cosmos, because one can’t quite imagine creation being destroyed and remade, while the bodies of Christ and his people just sit there while it happens around them.

    I’m basically inclining towards your view, but I still need to know what to do with Is 51:6, especially as I’m going to speak on it in a few months time :-) I expect the contrast with the context and v.8 helps.

    Me and being a post-mill: the reason I say “not convinced yet” is because I have sympathy for the arguments and remain open-minded, but haven’t come to a firm conclusion either way yet. I think the reason most conservative evangelicals are amill is that they react against the tendency of premill disps to misunderstand apocalyptic lit and read current political events into Ezekiel, Daniel and Rev, leading to extreme Christian Zionism etc. Conservative evangelicals often therefore try and avoid thinking about the issue and opt for the most simple eschatology possible. That would certainly describe much of my thinking before the past few months and I think post-mils do themselves a favour when they argue their case from all of scripture, rather than just Rev 20, thereby allaying legitimate fears about systematising apocalyptic lit in a way that the nature of the genre makes difficult.

  50. Daniel Newman Says:

    Isaiah 51.6: I am saying that these verses aren’t saying that the heavens and earth will be destroyed. I’m saying that they’re wearing out, in the language of Romans 8, in bondage to decay. Given Genesis 3, or assuming Isaiah has eyes, that much would be in his thought world. This contrasts with the everlasting nature of God’s salvation.

    Regarding Revelation 21, I think I meant kainos not neos. I got that from Dick Lucas’s and Christopher Green’s BST on 2 Peter. I’m sure there’s a footnote you can chase to verify what they’re saying.

  51. Pete Says:

    I have a feeling that kainos can be used to mean new in quality as well as totally new. Can’t cite examples as not got my equipment in front of me.

    Lexical work alone won’t settle this sort of issue I guess.

    I like yr suggestion about Isa 51:6 Daniel.

    Michael, you make a great point about the need to argue from more than just Rev 20. I have to say, Rev 20 really doesn’t settle the a-mill v post-mill question as far as I’m concerned. And in fact, one of the relative weaknesses of premillenialism is its heavy reliance on Rev 20.

  52. Richard Says:

    Pete & Daniel,

    I would welcome your input (if you get the time) in the discussion in the comments here. :-)

    You are both far better argued than I.


Leave a Reply