I continue to read Paul’s first epistle (sanctimony alert!) to the church and Corinth and am struck by the apostle’s understanding of the fleeting character of this life compared to the world to come. In his commentary on 1 Cor 7:29 (“This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none. . .”), John Calvin writes:
All things that are connected with the enjoyment of the present life are sacred gifts of God, but we pollute them when we abuse them. If the reason is asked, we shall find it to be this, that we always dream of continuance in the world, for it is owing to this that those things which ought to be helps in passing through it become hindrances to hold us fast. Hence, it is not without good reason, that the Apostle, with the view of arousing us from this stupidity, calls us to consider the shortness of this life, and infers from this, that we ought to use all the things of this world, as if we did not use them. For the man who considers that he is a stranger in the world uses the things of this world as if they were another’s — that is, as things that are lent us for a single day. The sum is this, that the mind of a Christian ought not to be taken up with earthly things, or to repose in them; for we ought to live as if we were every moment about to depart from this life.
John Calvin may not be the last word on the Bible or even on Calvinism, but my jaw continues to hit the desk when I try to reconcile such an understanding of the world with that of neo-Calvinism (or other varieties of postmillennialism). For all of the talk about the sufficiency of Scripture, the law-gospel hermeneutic, or the spirituality of the church, acknowledging the otherworldiness of Christianity (eegads! fundamentalism) seems pretty basic to the differences between neo-Calvinists and proponents of two-kingdom theology.
Old Life 
Are you trying to tell me Christianity’s not about us and the things we do for God? No way. You’re just too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good, D.G. At least go bust up a saloon or something.
LikeLike
I’ve had my suspicions that Calvin was a gnostic
LikeLike
I Cor 7:22 “he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is slave of Christ.”
But let’s not forget that Luther read I Cor 7 to justify Christian magistrates killing peasant parasites.
Luther: “A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.”
mark: I mean adventism is all well and good, but as we wait in the meanwhile. shall we take sides with the status quo? Better “order” of any kind (Muslim Mormon or secular) than any providential shaking of the foundations? The dialectic of Luther sounds so even steven, but in the end it tilted toward violence to conserve what inductively already was there.
God’s providence was on the side of King ——. Until it wasn’t.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart wrote: “John Calvin may not be the last word on the Bible or even on Calvinism, but my jaw continues to hit the desk when I try to reconcile such an understanding of the world with that of neo-Calvinism (or other varieties of postmillennialism).”
GW: An ecclesial postmillenialism (as opposed to reconstructionist, neo-cal or cultural transformationist postmillenialism) is completely compatible with the spirituality of the church, a high view of the church and her ordinary word-and-sacrament ministry, the church as a suffering pilgrim people, a theology of the cross, and even 2-K. Consider how A.A. Hodge explains the Scriptural doctrine of the millenium in his “Outlines of Theology” (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust): “1st. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, clearly reveal that the gospel is to exercise an influence over all branches of the human family, immeasurably more extensive and more thoroughly transforming than any it has ever realized in time past. This end is to be gradually attained through the spiritual presence of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of Providence, and ministrations of the church…” Etc. (p. 568) Of course, Hodge does use those distasteful (to old lifers) words “transform(ing)” and “influence”, but the context of his quote seems to indicate he is speaking primarily (if not exclusively) of a “spiritual” influence and transformation. Whether and to what extent that spiritual influence impacts culture and politics is a matter where postmils may differ, but the point is that the focus of this great Princetonian’s postmillenialism is on the “spiritual” influence and transformation that the gospel of Jesus Christ will make upon the world prior to our Lord’s return, all through the power of Christ’s spiritual presence and the ordinary ministrations of the church (word and sacrament ministry). This understanding of the postmil position is thoroughly compatible with belief in the spirituality of the church, 2K, and the spiritual power resident in the church’s ordinary word and sacrament ministry when that ministry is blessed by the omnipotent Spirit of God. (And, I might add, it is also compatible with the church in this age as called upon to suffer for righteousness’ sake. After all, our suffering as believers is not a suffering unto spiritual defeat, but a suffering unto spiritual victory, even when such suffering results in martyrdom or otherwise appears to the eyes of flesh as “defeat”.) So, hey, stop picking on us postmils. 🙂
In the Great Commission Christ called his church to make disciples of all nations (not to work for the “cultural” or “political transformation” of those nations) – Matt. 28:18-20. If Christ calls His church to this task, are we to believe that He will fail to equip the church in said task? Is the church predestined to fail in its spiritual task? Will not Christ equip His church – through its faithful exercise of the ordinary ministrations of the church and through filling up the sufferings of Christ – to do what He commanded it to do in the great commission? Or do we doubt Christ’s promise to be with us in the accomplishment of this task, even unto the end of the age?
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: This understanding of the postmil position is thoroughly compatible with belief in the spirituality of the church, 2K, and the spiritual power resident in the church’s ordinary word and sacrament ministry when that ministry is blessed by the omnipotent Spirit of God. (And, I might add, it is also compatible with the church in this age as called upon to suffer for righteousness’ sake. After all, our suffering as believers is not a suffering unto spiritual defeat, but a suffering unto spiritual victory, even when such suffering results in martyrdom or otherwise appears to the eyes of flesh as “defeat”.) So, hey, stop picking on us postmils.
RS: Good stuff.
LikeLike
GW, I appreciate where you end up on these issues BUT I have to wonder what to make of ‘gradual attainment through the spiritual presence of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of Providence’ I’m not sure how that doesn’t at least open the door for a ‘soft’ neo-Calvinism. I’m doubting the exclusivism of spirituality of the church on the part of Hodge in such a statement.
LikeLike
Sean wrote: “GW, I appreciate where you end up on these issues BUT I have to wonder what to make of ‘gradual attainment through the spiritual presence of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of Providence’ I’m not sure how that doesn’t at least open the door for a ‘soft’ neo-Calvinism. I’m doubting the exclusivism of spirituality of the church on the part of Hodge in such a statement.”
GW: Sean, thanks for your feedback on my comments. I suppose A.A. Hodge’s teaching on the millenium (as quoted in my first comment) could be misappropriated to support a form of “soft neo-calvinism”; but then again one could make the case that some of the Apostle Paul’s teachings on God’s grace in justification could be (and in fact have been) misappropriated to support the heresy of antinomianism. But the misuse and misappropriation of a teaching does not negate the legitimate use and proper understanding of said teaching, whether we are talking about A.A. Hodge’s millenial teaching or the Apostle Paul’s teaching on justification. In any case, whether or not Hodge held his postmillenialism in a manner consistent with the doctrine of the spirituality of the church; and even if most contemporary postmils hold to a form of postmillenialism that is inconsistent with the spirituality of the church and lean heavily in the “transformationist” and “theology of glory” direction; the point is that postmillenialism as such does not entail a rejection of the spirituality of the church, an embrace of neo-calvinism, or an embrace of one of the multiple forms of cultural transformationism (whether Christian America, Reconstructionism, the liberal social gospel, or what have you). At its heart a properly-conceived biblical postmillenialism embraces God’s promise in the Abrahamic covenant that the spiritual descendants of Abraham (i.e., true believers in Christ; Gal. 3:29) will, in the end, be an enormous company, a “great multitude that no one could number” (Rev. 7:9, ESV) – as many as the stars in the sky or the sand on the seashore in multitude, and not merely a teeny-tiny remnant; that the Great Commission will be fulfilled in the discipling of all nations (i.e., people groups as a whole); and that the omnipotent Spirit of God is able to accomplish these great spiritual blessings through the “foolish” (to the eyes of worldlings) means of the regular ministrations of Christ’s church (word and sacrament ministry).
As I see it, the real issue here is, will we believe God’s covenant promises or not? Will we walk by faith (believing that God will fulfill His covenant promises to bring in the vast multitude of His elect through the ordinary ministrations of the church, weak and despised though such ministrations may seem to the eyes of flesh); or will we walk by sight (looking at the sad state of the church today and drawing pessimistic conclusions about the church’s gospel prospects and spiritual progress in the future prior to the second advent of our Lord).
LikeLike
Geoff, I suspect you have a point, but I have long wondered if Princeton’s postmillennialism was partly responsible for the way its faculty sat by while the PCUSA participated in all sorts of ecumenical endeavors that were designed to usher in the kingdom, like the Federal Council of Churches. I continue to be surprised by that no Presbyterians seemed to object to that project which was an important instance of the Social Gospel.
LikeLike
Gary North spits on your “sweet spiritual” postmillenialists, especially those “puritans” who collaborated with English state church. Revivalists without a social conscience….
Click to access JCRv06n02%20L.pdf
LikeLike
Geoff – If Richard salutes your ideas, be very afraid…
Unless we’re talking about Rome, that is.
LikeLike
GW, thanks for the response. I’m not sure I’m ready to trade in my amil for Hodge’s postmil, based on an greater numerical optimism or even just gospel optimism. I don’t think amil has deficiency in those areas, particularly when we look at the ‘harvest’ from a historical perspective. I think ‘pessimistic amil’ is a caricature of the position whether considered numerically or as a deficiency of belief in the power of the gospel. Not that you would necessarily characterize amil that way, but you get my point.
LikeLike
There’s also that pesky question of whether Postmil is biblical. It’s not like as Bible-believeing Christians we have a theological cafeteria and we can choose between the rice pudding, the apple pie, or the carrot cake. I tried to be a Wilsonian Postmillennialist for awhile but all they really talked about was how grand postmillennialism was while throwing out an occasional verse about the waters covering the sea. When I went to an amil URC church that all crumbled like a house of cards pretty quickly.
LikeLike
Eric, I may be amil, but I am optimistic enough to think chocolate should be offered in the cafeteria. Or is all the chocolate for us?
On a more serious note, my women’s Bible study is in book (/sermon) of Hebrews, and this verse really compliments the beginning of chapter 12 about laying aside every weight that so easily ensnares us. Although, hopefully I’m not setting myself up for a bad wife joke now.
LikeLike
Aimee, this group needs no help in the setup dept. We take ground where none has been surrendered, just cuz.
LikeLike
“If heaven is our country, what can the earth be but a place of exile?” -John Calvin, Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 9, section 4
LikeLike
Erik Charter: When I went to an amil URC church that all crumbled like a house of cards pretty quickly.
RS: Cards, cigars, and alcohol. And you think others should be afraid when I salute their statements.
LikeLike
But does he go to movies or dance? That’s the question.
LikeLike
Bruce Settergren: But does he go to movies or dance? That’s the question.
RS: He does go to movies (at least he speaks about all the movies he has seen) and he does dance around when pinned down with thorny questions.
LikeLike
Richard,
I do like the brevity thing you got going finally. Let’s keep that up. Short and succinct.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart wrote: “Geoff, I suspect you have a point, but I have long wondered if Princeton’s postmillennialism was partly responsible for the way its faculty sat by while the PCUSA participated in all sorts of ecumenical endeavors that were designed to usher in the kingdom, like the Federal Council of Churches. I continue to be surprised by that no Presbyterians seemed to object to that project which was an important instance of the Social Gospel.”
GW: That’s a helpful caution. Whether Princeton’s postmillenialism (or, rather, its possible misapplication of postmillenialism) is to be blamed for this or not I do not have the historical knowledge or insight to say. (You’re the historian; confessedly I’m not.) In any case, I share many of your concerns about how some (many?) of my fellow postmils apply the postmil position to the cultural and political realm; I just don’t think that such misapplications (IMO) of postmil doctrine by contemporary postmils in itself negates the postmil position as such. Whether or not postmillenialism is the correct doctrine of the millenium must be decided on biblical-exegetical grounds, not historical ones.
LikeLike
Sean wrote: “GW, thanks for the response. I’m not sure I’m ready to trade in my amil for Hodge’s postmil, based on an greater numerical optimism or even just gospel optimism. I don’t think amil has deficiency in those areas, particularly when we look at the ‘harvest’ from a historical perspective. I think ‘pessimistic amil’ is a caricature of the position whether considered numerically or as a deficiency of belief in the power of the gospel. Not that you would necessarily characterize amil that way, but you get my point.”
GW: I appreciate your response. I apologize to you and my other amil brethren if I seemed to carry forward the “pessimistic amil” caricature in my comments (it was not my intention to do so). I realize that not every amil can be painted as a “pessimist,” and that there are plenty of “optimistic amillenialists.” In fact, some would probably insist that I would better be described as an “optimistic amil” rather than a postmil, since I believe we are now in the “millenium” described in Rev. 20, and have been ever since Pentecost. But, alas, there are variations amongst postmils, just as there are variations amongst amils; so I will continue to insist that I am a postmil. And I will continue to encourage my amil brethren to read and consider John Jefferson Davis’ “Christ’s Victorious Kingdom” and Keith A. Mathison’s “Postmillenialism: An Eschatology of Hope.”
LikeLike
GW, what about a realistic amil? Oh wait, that’s redundant.
LikeLike
Zrim wrote: “GW, what about a realistic amil? Oh wait, that’s redundant.”
GW: So postmils are “unrealistic”? Why? Wasn’t it “unrealistic” (from the perspective of sight) for Abraham to believe God’s promise that Sarah would conceive a child in her old age? Yes, from a fleshly perspective; but it was not “unrealistic” to Abraham the man of faith, who walked by faith and not by sight, because God’s covenant promises are always a certainty, and are thus “realistic.” As a postmil I would assert that it is likewise “realistic” to believe the covenant promises to Abraham that he would be the father of a vast multitude of descendants (i.e., his true spiritual descendants who follow in the footsteps of his faith).
LikeLike
Aimee – All of the ladies who comment at Oldlife get French Silk Pie.
LikeLike
Richard – I only play go fish with my 5-year-old.
LikeLike
Sean – I’ve been on Kloosterman’s blog. The Neocalvinists there make Richard look like Marcel Marceau (although that analogy doesn’t quite work when it comes to writing).
LikeLike
Amils believe Jesus could return at any time. If that makes me a pessimist, sign me up!
LikeLike