... Martin then goes on the attack again concerning young earth creationism, but there are some fine points in these pages. The real shocker comes on page 435. “The
Christian goal for missions must be nothing less than the complete
conversion and evangelization of our planet through the gospel of Jesus
Christ! (ital. his). Wow. Simply, wow! Amen, Mr. Martin.
“Preterism provides a theological framework and time perspective
necessary for the accomplishment of an amazing goal – the conversion of
our entire planet Earth to Christ by the power of the Christian gospel”
(435). Gary DeMar could not have written this better. This is
postmillennialism 101.
But, when I use words like “end” or “goal” I get hammered by Sullivan and Green. Let me be clear here: The goal you have just read from the pen of Tim Martin is EXACTLY my goal. But, and let this sink in deep, if this goal is so amazing, so damn-near-hard-to-imagine, but yet will be realized (manifested), then wouldn’t you think the Bible would say something about it? What, this Great Goal of the effects of Christ’s Cross and Parousia are not mentioned in the Prophets?
Huh? I am so glad I re-read this chapter. Please, again, accept my
apology Tim, Jeff (and Tami) for speaking falsely of Covenant
Creationism and having no goal…….no future…..you certainly do!...
So, again, read this post – read that chapter. Martin’s goal is my
goal. I suppose the difference is that I believe that this goal is prophesied.
Once it is accomplished perhaps then God will end history. I don’t
know when He will, just that he has revealed in the Bible that he will (Eccl 3.11; Is 41.4, et al). Other than these points, Martin and I are two peas in a pod. Of course, Martin will probably claim that the only
way you can get to this goal is to accept his covenant creationism.
Nah. I’ll stick with the embarassment of believing in a young earth...
Sam Frost
... I don't know how to break this to you, but you don't have a clue
about what we actually said in Chapter 21. I appreciate your positive
comments on the chapter. The problem is that you read the chapter with
your own mindset and definitions jangling so loudly in your own head
that you simply forced your own conceptions on what we actually wrote. I
have seen this pattern with you over and over. Whenever you read
someone, you can only see how that particular author is "saying the same
things" as Sam Frost. This is what happened once again. Your evaluation
of chapter 21? Not even close.
First, notice the first sentence below the "Conclusion" on p. 417 in
the previous chapter: "Our case for the complete fulfillment of
prophecy, based on the testimony of many biblical witnesses, will lead
naturally to many questions about what that means for modern Christians
today." That's the immediate context before chapter 21. We presented the
"complete fulfillment" of prophecy. Habakukk 2:14? Fulfilled.
That is because the "land/earth" in that text is the new covenant. It
is a prophecy about the coming new covenant. The knowledge of the glory
of the Lord is known by believers who inhabit the new heavens and new earth "as the waters cover the sea." Fulfilled. That is why no one needs to teach his neighbor to "know the Lord,"
because they all know the Lord, from the least to the greatest (Jer. 31:34). Jer. 31:34 is fulfilled in the new covenant "heavens and earth." Everyone in the new covenant knows God. Fulfilled. How about Isaiah 11:9:
"They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the
earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover
the sea"? Fulfilled. Notice the connection
between the Holy Mountain and the earth in that passage.Just like
Jerusalem and the new heavens and new earth in Rev. 21-22. Isaiah 11:10 (the very next verse) has an explicit time statement "In that day..." for goodness sake.
I, personally, am awaiting no OT prophecy to be fulfilled. All of
God's promises are fulfilled in Christ. Jeff and I said that explicitly
in the previous chapter.
Secondly, the part in BCS you erroneously cite is this: "The
Christian goal for missions must be nothing less than the complete
conversion and evangelization of our planet through the gospel of Jesus
Christ!" (BCS p. 435)
You read the word "goal" as in the sense of "telos" or "ultimate destination" because that is what you
were thinking about at the time with your infinity discussion. Worse
yet, you can't see any kind of statement like thas apart from your
Postmillennialism. Notice, though, it is the "Christian goal." I put it that way not because we are fulfilling some kind of worldwide prophecy
or that history has to come to an end when we reach this "consummation"
point or whatever nonsense you were spouting at the time. This is the
"Christian goal" because I happen to think Christians generally enjoy
(or at least should!) sharing God with their neighbors. You seem to
imply that if there is no prophecy regarding "planet Earth" then "why in
the heck would we want to evangelize it"? (your words)
Seriously, you need to stop for a second and think about what you
saying. It is idiotic. If the Bible doesn't have any prophecy regarding a
global conversion of planet Earth, then Christians shouldn't want to
evangelize their neighbors and share the knowledge of God with others?
Dude, you are losing your marbles.
Christians have a lot of interest to share God with others. Love of
neighbor is the one that comes off the top of my head. And if it is good
to share the gospel with my neighbors, then wouldn't it be even better
to help play my part in sharing it with all of my neighbors?
But there is even self-interest involved, too. The world is a better
place where the gospel has been before, for everyone. And we human
beings are going to live on this planet Earth indefinitely, in my view.
I happen to believe the gospel is powerful, and if you look again at the context (BCS p. 431-433) of the discussion, then you will see the whole discussion you are harping on was in terms of the historical example of the past success of the gospel in the first century which fulfilled the Great Commission. Do you believe the Great Commission has been fulfilled? We made this very, very clear in the book. None of this part of BCS was written in any way in the context of fulfilling OT prophecy.
That is your hair-brained idea that currently so possesses you that you
insert it directly into our presentation, and then bandy the whole
thing about in your writing like we were jumping on your latest bandwagon. This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Thirdly, even if Christians were ultimately successful with
evangelizing the planet for Christ, there is no guarantee this would be a
permanent or irreversible condition. I think you have the concept that
once the gospel takes over a nation, it is permanent. Sort of like a
national "once saved always saved" notion. Or perhaps a baptized
theological Evolution theory, as if every step is always progress no
matter what. However, things not only progress in history, they can
regress as well. There is movement both ways in history at any given
location and time. Always has been, always will be. I see no end to
kingdom work in the future, regardless.
Consider Asia Minor. The gospel had magnificent growth in the first
century, but how is the gospel doing there today? Think "Turkey." Does
the name "Constantinople" ring a bell? What is that place called
today? Why? Or how about North Africa. This is the place where Augustine
lived and wrote! And yet there is hardly a shred of Christianity left
in that land today. Why is this, and why couldn't this possibly happen
even after wider expansion of the gospel in the future? I would go so
far as to say that America is in decline today from its Christian roots.
Would you even consider Europe "Christian" anymore?
These are the kinds of details that postmillennialists (usually
Calvinists) don't talk about very much. If they do, they dismiss them as
"setbacks." Yet even the postmillennialism I was taught from Gentry had the "pleasure" of awaiting the fulfillment of Rev. 20:7-10.
It is such a stupid system, all things considered. Why anyone would
want to marry Postmillennialism with Full-preterism is beyond me. Have
you consulted the postmillennialists about your novel idea? I think most
of them are happily married already... to voluptuous partial-preterism.
If you were smart, you would repudiate your recent lurch back into
the wacky world of futurism and come back to your senses to work once
again within Covenant Eschatology. After awhile hardly anyone would
remember this blip in your writing history and those off the web with
your books on their shelves would never be the wiser for it. Give up
this nutty futurism. You've done a lot of great work in Covenant
Eschatology and it saddens me to see you are well on your way to
repudiating virtually all of your contributions to Full Preterism in the
past. If you have difficult personal issues in the background, just
take a break for some time to get your bearings. Talk to people like Don
Preston. Rethink your committment to abstract philosophizing and
theoretical speculation. Don't end your time with Full Preterism in such
an ugly wreck.
As far as how the future will go on planet Earth? I don't know, and
neither do you. I certainly don't believe the Bible was given to tell us
about the end of planet Earth. Same principle applies to the original
formation of our universe. (I do realize that this might mean admitting
that we probably should have listened to those "evil" scientists a bit
more in the past, but so what?) The Bible just doesn't tell us those
things. Why would it? We have everything in Christ. With a little bit of
work and some perseverance the future will be bright indeed. I see that
fact worked out in the lives of individuals, families, congregations,
and nations. It never ceases to amaze me.
I am optimistic because I think that historical paradigms (like the
Reformed Faith) are disintegrating along with their incipient futurism.
Now that
is God working in history for you! But exactly what a new era of
realized theology will fully entail and effect around us is beyond me.
But here's an idea. What if God didn't say anything about the future so
as not to spoil this grand adventure upon which he has embarked with his
people? Ever thought of that? Adventure. Drama. Suspense. Sounds like
the Kingdom of God to me. What if God is perfectly happy to enjoy the
mature presence with his people living by faith? Why should we, in the
maturity of the new covenant, have this "are we there, yet, are we
there, yet, are we there, yet" mentality? Why should we go bonkers if
God doesn't spell out the future in specific detail like we see in the
context of the Old Covenant? Do you really want to emulate that
structure and format?
I don't.
I like adventure. I am very grateful that my view calls for living
into the future by faith. For now, I am perfectly content to live in the
kingdom of God through covenant and work out the gospel in my life with
my family, my congregation and my community.
Life is good.
Tim Martin
(source)
