I realise that I am starting this piece on shaky ground, since certain theological debates can easily degenerate into open warfare with casualties quickly piling up. My intent here is NOT to revisit the kazillions of debates that have already taken place concerning various views about the end times and the like.
I simply want to once again look at a book by Doug Wilson that I have been discussing off and on of late: Mere Christendom (Canon Press, 2023). This is my third article on the book, and more may yet be forthcoming. Wilson of course is postmil, and he argues that his view of things is more optimistic than that of some other believers with differing eschatological views. Simply consider four books written by folks in this camp:
God’s Plan for Victory by Rousas John Rushdoony (Thoburn Press, 1977) Christ’s Victorious Kingdom: Postmillennialism Reconsidered by John Jefferson Davis (Baker, 1986) Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism by Greg Bahnsen (Covenant Media, 1999) Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathison (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1999)
They show an optimistic, hope-filled perspective. Again, my point is not to argue for or against this view. It is simply my intent to look further at some of Wilson’s thoughts, this time from Chapter 19 of the book titled “Inevitability,” which examines in a little more detail this eschatological point of view.
And since his book is primarily made up of quotes from his previous articles and blogs, I will not be doing it a disservice by simply quoting various parts of this chapter. But as I have said before, the whole book deserves to be read in its entirety to better see the sort of case he is seeking to make.
Here then is a smattering of quotes:
Christians have an eschatological orientation. It is possible for us to know, in the midst of all our challenges and conflicts, that the word of the prophets was given for our encouragement and hope. “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10). We were taught to pray that the kingdom would come to earth, not that the kingdom would float off into the sky. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Not thy will be done in Heaven when we get there. The meek shall inherit . . . what?
When the edict of Haman for the destruction of the Jews went out, Mordecai only saw one way out, and that was for the queen to intercede on behalf of her people to the king. But he was a man of faith, and not just a man with a plan. He knew that it was possible for Esther to falter. He knew that she might stumble. And so he said, “For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place” (Esther 4:14, ESV). Mordecai knew how to read the story he was in. Scripture presents us with many different kinds of stories, and we are called to discernment as we seek to place ourselves. We are in an Esther story. (pp. 240-241)
***
We cannot pray for the purification of the silver, and then despair when we begin to approach the furnace that removes the dross. The church in America is shot through with corruptions. If we want that corruption removed, then we must also want God’s appointed instruments for removing it. When God wants to reveal what cannot be shaken, He does so by shaking. That is where we are right now, and it should be a great encouragement to us. That is, it should be a great encouragement for those whose ministries are not chaff, dross, or loose unmortared stones. (p. 242)
***
When Jesus rose and ascended, His disciples did not return to the upper room and unpack Christendom from the boxes He had left for them there. As has been pointed out repeatedly, Jesus did not give them a turnkey kingdom. The kingdom of God does not arrive as coup de main. The kingdom of God does not arrive like a tsunami. The kingdom of God does not arrive like the 101st Airborne. Jesus said, and He said repeatedly, that the kingdom was a slow-growth affair, working through the loaf like yeast.
And now, two thousand years later, when we see that the Christian faith has grown and expanded throughout the world in just the way He said it would, should this be a cause for unbelief? (p. 243)
***
We want the world to become Christian the way the devil offered to make it Christian, if only Jesus would bow down and worship him. But God works a different calculus, and He had His only-begotten Son hanged on a gibbet instead. What was He doing? He was making the world Christian, but He was doing it His way and on His timetable. But he was making the world Christian (John. 12:31). Jesus, by and through His death, cast out the prince of this world. And, by the way, in the original Greek “cast out” does not mean “kept around.”…
So how is the process of discipling the nations to be accomplished? With centuries, nay, with millennia of bumpity-bumpity. (pp. 244-245)
Mere Christendom: The Case for Bringing Christianity Back into Modern Culture - Leading by Faith to Convert Secularismby Douglas Wilson (Author)
Not unexpectedly, Wilson concludes his chapter on this optimistic note:
I believe that we will be delivered. I believe that we will see a black swan revival. But whether we are delivered or not, it doesn’t matter. Faithfulness can be found in apparent defeat as easily as in victory. Deliverance is given to faithful men, and faithful men are those who care about certain things more than deliverance.
“If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up” (Dan. 3:17–18, emphasis added)
I believe we need to pray and work for deliverance. I believe we need to expect deliverance, trusting God for it. But whether or not He grants us that victory, we can at least arrange for a flamboyant defeat.
One of the reasons why Christians are so discouraged by the turn events have taken is that they have not been steeped in the right kind of stories. Smaug is great, but Bard has one arrow left. (p. 246)
As I say, Christians can and do differ on how we think about eschatology. Having a differing point of view should not be a hanging offence! And recall that the “last days” in fact commenced 2000 years ago. Moreover, we read in various places in the New Testament about how the Lord is coming back “soon”.
Since God inhabits a somewhat different timeframe than we do, he is allowed to consider a period of two millennia to be seen as ‘soon’. And the truth is this. Christ COULD return before you finish reading this piece. Then again, he might not come back for another year, or decade, or century – or maybe even another two thousand years.
But whenever he comes, our marching orders remain the same: we are to occupy till he comes. Knowing most assuredly that he IS going to return should help us all to have an optimistic view of things, regardless of our particular take on the end times.
One Reply to “Seeing the Long Term and the Big Picture of the Gospel”
Thanks Bill.
I simply do not, and cannot follow Douglas Wilson and his post-millennial colleagues for several reasons:
1. When Paul warns against a “too soon” expectation of the Second coming he says “that day shall not come unless the apostasia (rebellion) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed” (2 These 2:3). Post-millennialism would have him say, “that day shall not come unless the entire world is first evangelised, and Christianised, and the gospel triumphant throughout the world”. Of course, such benign optimism is absent from and opposite to Paul’s view. In short, 2 Thess 2 tells against the post-millennial vision, and my own reading of their literature they see it more as a problem to be explained away.
2. The book of Revelation tells against this notion: There we see “the unholy trinity” (the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet) active against the Church right up until the end, with the devil let loose in full fury as the end approaches (Rev 20). Yet the Gospel does advance, but in the face of, in the teeth of, and against the bitterest opposition from the devil and his minions. For all that, Christ does draw out His chosen from the maelstrom of the hostile world.
3. Moreover, in the post-millennial scheme the great hope, the “big deal”, is the triumph of the Gospel and Christianisation of the world, while the Second Coming of Christ, “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13) appears as almost an anti-climax. A reading of post-millennial literature will confirm this quite unscriptural perspective. On the contrary, the Second Coming is the “blessed hope” of the Church, and hopes other than this must be set aside.
4. I see the constant plea from post-millennial advocates for an “optimistic view” of eschatology, as little more than an appeal to emotion, a pull on the Christian heart strings, rather than a serious exegesis of relevant texts. E.g. if Christ’s coming lies beyond this Christianization for the world, as post-millennialism envisages—which has not happened in nearly 2000 years of Church history, and is certainly not the case now—what are we to do with the several texts and passages which tell us to be watchful, for we do not know the time (see e.g. Luke 12:35-40, 1 Thess 5:1-2, et al)?
Hence my considered view, in the light of the teaching of the New Testament, is that post-millennialism should be consigned to the bin. You may not agree with this assessment (and it would appear that you don’t), but that is my conviction, having once flirted with this view in my college days, but have come to reject it. My own conviction is a-millennial, which I am persuaded is the historic faith of the Church regarding eschatology, the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints.
Thanks Bill.
I simply do not, and cannot follow Douglas Wilson and his post-millennial colleagues for several reasons:
1. When Paul warns against a “too soon” expectation of the Second coming he says “that day shall not come unless the apostasia (rebellion) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed” (2 These 2:3). Post-millennialism would have him say, “that day shall not come unless the entire world is first evangelised, and Christianised, and the gospel triumphant throughout the world”. Of course, such benign optimism is absent from and opposite to Paul’s view. In short, 2 Thess 2 tells against the post-millennial vision, and my own reading of their literature they see it more as a problem to be explained away.
2. The book of Revelation tells against this notion: There we see “the unholy trinity” (the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet) active against the Church right up until the end, with the devil let loose in full fury as the end approaches (Rev 20). Yet the Gospel does advance, but in the face of, in the teeth of, and against the bitterest opposition from the devil and his minions. For all that, Christ does draw out His chosen from the maelstrom of the hostile world.
3. Moreover, in the post-millennial scheme the great hope, the “big deal”, is the triumph of the Gospel and Christianisation of the world, while the Second Coming of Christ, “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13) appears as almost an anti-climax. A reading of post-millennial literature will confirm this quite unscriptural perspective. On the contrary, the Second Coming is the “blessed hope” of the Church, and hopes other than this must be set aside.
4. I see the constant plea from post-millennial advocates for an “optimistic view” of eschatology, as little more than an appeal to emotion, a pull on the Christian heart strings, rather than a serious exegesis of relevant texts. E.g. if Christ’s coming lies beyond this Christianization for the world, as post-millennialism envisages—which has not happened in nearly 2000 years of Church history, and is certainly not the case now—what are we to do with the several texts and passages which tell us to be watchful, for we do not know the time (see e.g. Luke 12:35-40, 1 Thess 5:1-2, et al)?
Hence my considered view, in the light of the teaching of the New Testament, is that post-millennialism should be consigned to the bin. You may not agree with this assessment (and it would appear that you don’t), but that is my conviction, having once flirted with this view in my college days, but have come to reject it. My own conviction is a-millennial, which I am persuaded is the historic faith of the Church regarding eschatology, the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints.