“There are only two forms of engagement that Christians can engage in — we must either adopt a transformationalist approach or a compromising approach. If we are not going to go the escapist route, waiting for the rapture, we must either take every thought captive, or we must split the difference” (Rules, p. 241)
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
this is going to sound like a dumb questions, but what is “Rules” that is often quoted from?
This is a false dilemma. Christians are transformational if they preach and live the Gospel, irrespective of their views on eschatology. And compromises of a certain sort are required all day every day.
Bro. Steve wrote:
Wilson is contrasting an “every thought captive” transformation of the world, in history, from a private transformation of the inner heart of a tiny believing minority. Wilson is distinguishing overcoming (saving) the world versus not ever overcoming the world through the Gospel.
Those who hold to an escapist eschatology do not adopt a long-term, public, overcoming, real-world-saving, transformational approach, at least not consistently from within their escapism. That’s why it’s called escapism.
And also, it is possible to be premil, even believe in the rapture, and not be escapist, right?
Assuming by “engagement” he means cultural engagement, is this a sort of follow up quote to his tattoo post recently? If so, I’m curious what anyone might think of Paul Hiebert’s work on critical contextualization in that context. Any thoughts? Also, as I’ve mentioned before, would Paul’s request of Timothy to be circumcised be seen as splitting the difference or taking every thought captive?
I love the book quotes, Doug.
A thought: Following up on David Payan’s question above, I think a lot of people read these quotes, think “now, that was hot,” and yet, because they have no idea where the quote came from, never buy the book. I know I saw quotes from “Rules” for weeks before ever thinking to look up what it was all about.
So … the digital marketer in me says you should include a nice little “Buy the Book” button with each of these.
Exeunt me.
Just putting this here lieu of anywhere better:
It is now possible to block other Disqus users. Click on their name, then the three blue dots next to the blue “Follow” button.
For shame, Dunsworth.
Have you no sense of decency, madam?
At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
Ya, man’s “Rules” and words. The Scripture says, “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” (Rev 12:11) Sounds to me like God’s idea of victory is neither pretrib escapism nor a postmil pipe dream. How about the premil post trib realism of the 2nd century church? Postmillenialism is rooted in the optimistic humanism of the 19th century, Dispensationalism in the pessimism are Darbyism and the 20th century. The fact is there has been a long war of rebellion against God and… Read more »
Anderson wrote: Postmillenialism is rooted in the optimistic humanism of the 19th century … Humanism? Why couldn’t Postmillennialism be rooted in simple belief in these passages?: PSALMS 2:8 ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession. ISAIAH 49:6 He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the… Read more »
Because Hal Lindsey said so.
Even since he wrote a paragraph in “The Late Great Planet Earth” setting forth the baseless canard that postmillennialism = 19th century optimistic humanism, it keeps getting repeated, even by people who are in no wise followers of dispensationalism.
Sorry, but it was my judgment not Lindsey’s. I reject Dispensationalism.
Are you so ignorant of the 19th century and why postmillenialism became dominant? Have you ever read widely outside of Reformed circles? Look at the Salvation Army, one of many post mil Christian movements. Even Alexander Campbell of the Restoration Movement was post mil.
A bastardized version of postmillennialism may indeed have been favored by 19th century Christians influenced by humanism.
It does not follow that postmillennialism as such is humanistic. And it’s flat ahistorical to attribute it to the 19th century, since it was around long before that.
Name me the humanistic premises in the type of postmillennialism believed by 21st century evangelicals.
It flourished in the 19th c. I did not say or intend to say that post-millenialism was the product of humanism, but that the humanism, optimism and progressivism of the 19th c. fertilized the weed. What is an “Evangelical”? I would say that Arminianism is a form of humanism. There is a decided turn to Arminianism and Romanism in the Federal Visionists. If post-millenialism is true, then why do its advocates spend so much time quoting each other and so little time quoting Scripture. Like the Dispensationalists, they invent methods to eliminate Scripture that contradicts them. The Dispies has their… Read more »
Not one of those Scriptures supports postmillenialism any more than they support historic premillenialism. They are all prophesies of Christ.
Anderson wrote:
Anderson just inadvertently admitted that these Scriptures do support postmillennialism. This means that he just invalidated his charge that postmillennialism is rooted in humanism (19th century or otherwise).
Anderson may not like all these passages being in the Bible, but they are still there, and they still proclaim that Jesus came to save the world and that He will inherit the nations.
Sorry, but one can assert that socialism is rooted in the Scriptures and list some verses. That does not prove the Scriptures TEACH socialism. Perhaps I should have stated post-millenialism received its impetus in the humanistic optimism and “progress” of the 19th century. Many overtly post-millenial Christian movements began in that century and post-mil became wide spread. The First World War and the whole of the bloody history of 20th century utopian schemes pretty much put it to rest, along with the inherent “goodness” of humanity. But then came postmodernism and rational thought died. I think Post-millenialism is akin to… Read more »
Anderson wrote: Sorry, but one can assert that socialism is rooted in the Scriptures and list some verses. That does not prove the Scriptures TEACH socialism. One can also assert, as Anderson tried to assert, that postmillennialism is rooted in humanism. Mere assertion is no proof of anything, especially given the many Scriptures that address the subject in favor of a postmillennial optimism. Anderson wrote: Perhaps I should have stated post-millenialism received its impetus in the humanistic optimism and “progress” of the 19th century. Whatever historic association there may be between humanists and the postmillennial position is irrelevant, unless Anderson… Read more »
Being a prophecy of Christ does make it not postmillennial. Postmillennialists don’t believe the kingdom happens apart from Christ. Who told you they did?
I see no answers to the charge of deviation from biblical and Reformed soteriology. Nor the wrong interpretation of the Great Commission.
I daresay that postmillenialists here agree with you that,
1) Christ’s victory does not come about through the humanistic process of education.
2) The Church does not bring in the kingdom of Christ by herself, or by her own power.
3) Christ’s final victory is at his return.
Therefore your charge does not apply.
Is the coming of the kingdom in fullness monergistic or synergistic?
Is the great commission to make disciples of people from all nations (the elect)?
Or is it to create pseudo-Christian nations, like Christendom?
Where is the evidence from history that post-mil is true? Where are the Christian nations? I count ZERO.
If by “the coming of the kingdom in fulness” you mean “the second coming of Christ,” that is at God’s discretion, and by his power. Therefore it is divinely monergistic. Postmillenialists here would agree, so that is no argument against their position. Christ in Matt. 28:19 literally makes “nations” the object of the teaching/training/discipling endeavor, but obviously that doesn’t happen apart from training the people in the nations. Is the church’s commission ended when just a few people are baptized and enrolled as disciples? What if the majority of a people are elect? Will that not impact the behavior and… Read more »