John Calvin's Postmillennialism By Greg L. Bahnsen

 John Calvin's Postmillennialism

By Greg L. Bahnsen

Reformed theology (as distinguished from evangelical or Lutheran theology) takes as its father the indisputable theological master of the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin. The heritage of postmillennialism in Reformed theology can be traced to the Cavinian corpus of literature. J. A. De Jong, in his doctoral dissertation at the Free University of Amsterdam (As the Waters Cover the Sea), asserted that “John Calvin’s commentaries give some scholars cause for concluding that he anticipated the spread of the gospel and true religion to the ends of the earth.”[1]

J. T. McNeill, the editor of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion for the Library of Christian Classics, speaks of “Calvin’s conception of the victory and future universality of Christ’s Kingdom throughout the human race, a topic frequently introduced in the Commentaries.”[2] In his recent study, The Puritan Hope, Iain H. Murray stated that “Calvin believed that Christ’s kingdom is already established, and, unlike Luther, he expected it to have a yet greater triumph in history prior to the consummation.”[3] The judgment of these men (and those secondary sources upon which they depend) is certainly well grounded in Calvin’s writings.

About the view that Christ would have a literal one-thousand-year reign upon the earth (namely, premillennialism), Calvin said this “fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation.” At the same time, he indicated his implicit disagreement with the view (fostered by later amillennilalists) that the millennium pertains to the intermediate state of the saints (i.e., their disembodied heavenly rest subsequent to physical death and prior to the general resurrection); according to Calvin, the “one thousand” of Revelation 20 pertains to “the church while still toiling on earth.”[Institutes 3:25:5] Nor would Calvin have agreed with the position that says the millennial triumph of the saints is simply the spiritual (invisible) victories in the Christian’s heart or the internal blessings privately experienced by the church (namely, one school of amillennial interpretation). With particular application to the kingdom of Christ, he said, “it would not have been enough for the kingdom to have flourished internally.” [Commentary on Psa 21:8] Calvin saw the Psalmist as saying that the prosperity and strength of the King of God’s choosing must be visible and publicly acknowledged; Christ must be shown victorious over all His enemies in this world, and His kingdom must be demonstrated to be immune from the various agitations currently experienced in the world.[Commentary on Psa 21:17]

In his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:8, Calvin declared:

“Paul, however, intimates Christ will in the meantime, by the rays which he will emit previously to his advent, put to flight the darkness in which antichrist will reign, just as the sun, before he is seen by us, chases away the darkness of the night by the pouring forth of his rays. This victory of the word, therefore, will show itself in this world . . . . He also furnished Christ with these very arms, that he may rout his enemies. This is a signal commendation of true and sound doctrine – that it is represented as sufficient for putting an end to all impiety, and as destined to be invariably victorious, in opposition to all the machinations of Satan.”

For Calvin, the kingdom of Christ was viewed as established at the first advent and continuing in force until the second advent. During this interadventual period, the church is destined to experience widespread success; throughout history it will bring all nations under the sovereign sway of Christ. To this interadventual period Calvin referred many of the glorious prophecies about the Messiah’s kingdom found in the Old Testament. “The saints began to reign under heaven when Christ ushered in his kingdom by the promulgation of his Gospel.”[Commentary on Dan 7:27]

Commenting upon the Isaiah 65:17 prophecy of God’s creating new heavens and a new earth, Calvin said: “By these metaphors he promises a remarkable change of affairs; . . . but the greatest of such a blessing, which was to be manifested at the coming of Christ, could not be described in any other way. Nor does he mean only the first coming, but the whole reign, which must be extended as far as to the last coming. . . . Thus the world is (so to speak) renewed by Christ . . . and even now we are in the progress and accomplishment of it. . . . The Prophet has in his eye the whole reign of Christ, down to its final close, which is also called ‘the day of renovation and restoration.’ (Acts iii.21)”

Commenting on John 12:31 Calvin notes: “The glory of God shines . . . never more brightly than in the cross, in which . . . the whole world was renewed and all things restored to order.” About Isaiah 2:2-4, Calvin had the following to say: “while the fullness of days began at the coming of Christ, it flows on in uninterrupted progress until he appears the second time for our salvation.” During this time “the church, which had formerly been, as it were, shut up in a corner, would now be collected from every quarter. . . . The Prophet here shows that the boundaries of his kingdom will be enlarged that he may rule over various nations. . . . Christ is not sent to the Jews only, that he may reign over them, but that he may hold sway over the whole world.” The triumphant progress of the church, reigning under Christ, will be remarkable down through history; the soteric restoration of the world will be increasingly evident as all nations come under the rule of the Savior. Such was Calvin’s hope, his biblical philosophy of history.

The scepter of Christ’s kingdom by which He rules is “his Word alone,” and Satan with his power fails to the extent that christ’s kingdom is upbuilt through the power of preaching.[Commentary Isa 11:4] Calvin boldly proclaimed that “the labour of Christ, and of the whole Church, will be glorious, not only before God, but likewise before men. . . . Hence it follows, that we ought to have good hopes of success.”[Commentary at Isa. 49:6] “We must not doubt that our Lord will come at last to break through all the undertakings of men and make a passage for his word. Let us hope boldly, then, more than we can understand; he will still surpass our opinion and our hope.”[Cited by Murray, Puritan Hope, xii]

The confidence of the Reformer was clearly expressed in his expositions of the Lord’s Prayer at the second petition (“Thy kingdom come”): “now, because the word of God is like a royal scepter, we are bidden here to entreat him to bring all men’s minds and hearts into voluntary obedience to it. . . . Therefore God sets up his Kingdom by humbling the whole world. . . . We must daily desire that God gather churches unto himself from all parts of the earth; that he spread and increase them in number; . . . that he cast down all enemies of pure teaching and religion; that he scatter their counsels and crush their efforts. From this it appears that zeal for daily progress is not enjoined upon us in vain. . . . With ever-increasing splendor, he displays his light and truth, by which the darkness and falsehoods of Satan’s kingdom vanish, are extinguished, and pass away. . . . [God] is said to reign among men, when they voluntarily devote and submit themselves to be governed by him. . . . by this prayer we ask, that he may remove all hindrances, and may bring all men under his dominion. . . . The substance of this prayer is, that God would enlighten the world by the light of his Word, — would form the hearts of men, by the influences of his Spirit, to obey his justice, — and would restore to order, by the gracious exercise of his power, all the disorder that exists in the world. . . . Again, as the kingdom of God is continually growing and advancing to the end of the world, we must pray every day that it may come: for to whatever extent iniquity abounds in the world, to such an extent the kingdom of God, which brings along with it perfect righteousness, is not yet come.”[Commentary at Matt 6:10] This prayer for the evident success of the Great commission will not be in vain, according to Calvin; our hope for success should be bold, for we must not doubt that Christ will accomplish this purpose in the world. Here we have the postmillennial vision for preconsummation history.

Footnotes

1. J. D. De Jong, As the Waters Cover the Sea: Millennial Expectations in the Rise of Anglo-American Missions 1640-1810 (J. H. Kok N.V. Kampen, 1970), 8.

2. J. T. McNeill, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 2: 904.

3. Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope: A Study in Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (London: Banner of Truth, 1971), 4

Systematic Theology (MP3 Lecture Series) by Greg Bahnsen

 

 Systematic Theology (MP3 Lecture Series) by Greg Bahnsen

 https://www.monergism.com/systematic-theology-mp3-lecture-series-0

Anthony Rogers on Early Church Father Marius Victorinus Teaching Justification by Faith Alone

Anthony Rogers got pushback when he made a video where he argued some of the early church fathers taught justification by faith alone. The following are links to the videos. I've posted the one on Victorinus first even though it was broadcast afterwards because he provides abundant quotes that Victorinus held to justification by faith alone. Thus proving that justification by faith alone was not invented by Martin Luther but antedated him by over a thousand years.

Let the Fathers Speak: Justification by Faith Alone (Marius Victorinus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MVTzeeL_mI

Justification by Faith ALONE: Sola Fide in the Fathers
https://youtu.be/dpeV8-M5-Ng

Anthony Rogers also posted an audio clip of Greg Bahnsen on Justification:

Justification by Faith Alone: the Apostles vs the Papists
https://youtu.be/qwj0AD6RjEg

A Response to Paul Maxwell's Critique of Christian Hedonism

 

Paul Maxwell has recently apostatized from Christianity. Hopefully, he'll return to Christianity and the Lord Jesus Christ. During his time as a Christian he recorded a video where he critiques John Piper's Christian Hedonism. I'll link to the video below and then post the comments I posted on the video. Maxwell does present some legitimate concerns of Christian Hedonism. But they are not fatal to the movement and Christian philosophy of life. With the right minor tweaks, Christian Hedonism is not only Biblical, but livable.

 

Paul Maxwell's 5 Reasons Why I'm Not a Christian Hedonist

The following are my comments in the video with some formatting and added links that were not possible on YouTube:

I found this video after Paul Maxwell's deconversion. In this video, Paul Maxwell [hereafter, PaulM] doesn't refute Christian Hedonism/CH, all he does is disprove false understandings and incorrect applications of it. In other words, a strawman. I get the feeling PaulM hasn't actually read Piper's book 1. "Desiring God"; 2. "When I Don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy", or 3. Future Grace, 4. listened to Piper's responses to his critics.

PaulM says at 21:26 //"Seneca can appreciate even the value of pleasure for Stoicism while putting pleasure in its proper place under conformity to God. For Seneca conformity to God, submission to fate and submission to the divine will is far more important than putting pleasure at the top of this experiential hierarchy."//

But Piper specifically states that in CH, God is not a means to pleasure. That would make pleasure God, rather than God Himself. Which is idolatry. Instead, CH makes GOD one's pleasure, and therefore making God one's God [i.e. at the top]. That's why Piper repeatedly quotes Ps. 37:4 which is a COMMAND [i.e. read DUTY] to "DELIGHT yourself in the LORD". Delight, meaning, take PLEASURE in the LORD. That's why there's no contradiction between duty and delight, because God commands us to take pleasure in Him. Which is none other than, Christian Hedonism.

PaulM says at 18:44 //"even if it's pleasure that we can conceive to have this ultimate point of reference or root or termination in God Himself"//

PaulM seems to not know [or forget] that it's all done out of love for God and love from God. Piper doesn't deny doing our duty. Nor does Piper advocate only performing our duties when we feel pleasure from it. Instead, when we don't presently feel pleasure in performing our duty, Piper appeals [among other things] to our reason [think, aligning one's mind and will to God, as in Stoicism] to remind us of the future pleasures we will have from obedience in the afterlife which includes God's approbation and rewards [one of the main points of Piper's book "Future Grace"] . The present and future pleasures [both in life and in the afterlife] we [will/do] enjoy in loving God and being loved and rewarded by God. Again, there's no contradiction between duty and pleasure, as Piper argued. There is a place for delayed gratification in Piper's CH.

PaulM says at 20:17 Seneca says, //"...true happiness therefore resides in virtue..."//

Contrary to "Euthyphro's Dilemma", God IS the Good. God is the standard of Goodness and the source of Virtue. In God is found the ancient philosophers' search for the Good, the True and the Beautiful. They meet at the top in God.

PaulM quotes Seneca at 20:53 "a man whose able to accomplish a Stoic posture will be accompanied by continuous cheerfulness and a profound happiness that comes from deep inside him. Since he is one who takes pleasure in his own resources and wishes for no joys greater than those of his own heart..."

In Christianity, the joy and happiness of the Christian is from God. It's not self-generated [Rom. 15:13]. The Christian does not take "...pleasure in HIS OWN RESOURCES", but in God's resources and grace [Phil. 4:19; Ps. 35:27; Ps. 84:11-12, passim]. 

PaulM says at 22:33 //"than a system that prioritizes pleasure above all things"//. 

This again, makes me thing that PaulM just hasn't read Piper's books. That he's getting CH from second hand sources, rather than directly from Piper's books and sermons. Piper specifically denies pleasure as "above all things". He's an Edwardsian [for truth's sake!!!] who sees God and His glory as the uppermost reason and purpose of all reality.

[[By "Edwardsian" I meant a follower of the teachings of the famous American Calvinist theologian and philosopher Jonathan Edwards]]

PaulM says at 22:51 that CHists think "duty sucks". Again, another strawman. It's duty for duty's sake that sucks, is wrong, and is immoral. While duty for God's sake and our pleasure doesn't. There's a world of difference between the two. Remember, Piper modified the answer to the question in the Westminster Smaller Catechism's question what is the chief end of man? Piper changed it to "to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever".

At 23:34 is the first time in the video where I saw a critique that has some merit. My favorite apologist, the recently late Steve Hays of Triablogue, has made a similar critique. Where Piper goes wrong here is in implying we should and can only glorify and enjoy God directly. The fuller truth, which Piper doesn't see, is we are finite creatures, and we are to glorify God not only directly, but indirectly by enjoying creaturely blessings both in the next life as well as [deo volente] in this life. Piper's premillennialism is influencing his CHism. If he read some postmillennialist writers, he'd realize that God is also glorified in our enjoying [to some degree and as God permits] the pleasures of this life, of food & drink, of raising godly families, of enjoying the fruits of our labors, of reconstruction of society along postmil lines etc. Christianity doesn't have a Platonic aversion and hatred for the body or the material world. The body is not, as in Platonism, the prison of the soul. God created the soul and the body and God sees both as being good. We Chrisians believe in the RESURRECTION of the body. The eternal state of the redeemed in the Kingdom of God will not disembodied. It's ONLY in the temporary intermediate state in heaven where the saints exist in only a spiritual condition. Only with resurrected glorified bodies will believers be complete.

At this point, I've watched a little over half of the video. If I have more comments for the 2nd half, I'll post them in later comments.

Second Comment

At 24:31 PaulM speaks almost like a naturalist/materialist/atheist. Yes, there are such psychological limits that he describes. But, if Christianity is true, then God's grace can overcome those limits. Does God always grant such overcoming supra-supernatural grace? No, sometimes it's infra-supernatural grace. If the latter, it's so that we might learn to be dependent on God's continual grace. So, for example, God sometimes grants supra-supernatural grace such that a homosexual completely loses homosexual attractions. Other times, God doesn't so that we will learn to depend on Him continually [if Calvinism is true, then even THAT response on our part is a result of sanctifying grace working in the heart].   

At 25:10. PaulM is right that there are other methods. Here Piper could be more clear and comprehensive. PaulM says CH proscribes or forbids other methods. Does it really? I'm not sure it does. I'm not sure that Piper would say that other methods are illicit, only that the CH method ought always be incorporated and is the highest method among all other methods one may/can use.  For example, it can be useful and licit to help one keep in physical shape by recognizing that by exercising and eating correctly one will look better, feel better, be more attractive, have more energy [etc.]? I think the answer is clearly "yes". But if those motivations are not below the greater CH motivation, then they can become forms of self-centered idolatry and self-love/worship. Creature worship, instead of Creator worship [Rom. 1:25]. 

At 27:07 PaulM gives his 4th reason why he's not a CH. He says it might be the greatest reason. Because it minimizes pleasure, rather than maximizing it. Here again is where I think Piper get's it a bit wrong or off. Again, I would recommend Steve Hays' Triablogue comments on this issue. See for example, Hays' article "God is the Gospel" posted February 17, 2009 . Hays gives similar correctives that PaulM makes here and the rest of the video.

At 28:25 PaulM makes another good point. Piper's railing against the Prosperity Gospel is excessive. I myself, as a Calvinistic continuationist think there's both error and some truth to the Properity Gospel. See Vincent Cheung's articles "Faith Override"; "All Thing Are Yours"; "The Extreme Faith Teacher" . Along with other of Cheung's writings on faith, healing, prosperity. While I agree with some of what Cheung teaches, there are some problems. I think Cheung is too harsh on cessationists. I also disagree with his Hyper-Calvinistic tendencies and Clarkian Scripturalism [see Aquascum's articles refuting Cheung and Clark's Scripturalism. I think James N. Anderson might be "Aquascum"].

At 29:40, PaulM makes another good point. Piper's premillennialism is again peaking through. I used to be a premiller and it hampered me in the same way it does Piper. If only Piper read postmillennialist literature, he would see that God can be glorified in every area of life including business, entertainment, government, art, politics, prosperity etc. See Greg Bahnsen's audio and books. Even if you reject his theonomy, there's certainly much truth to what he says regarding reconstruction of society for the glory of God. See Cheung's article  "He Blesses Us to Bless Us". I'll comment on the rest of the video after I quote Cheung's article.

Cheung's article He Blesses Us to Bless Us
//~ from email ~ Some preachers say that God blesses a person mainly or even solely because this person should bless other people, and because those will in turn bless others, and so on. They often assert this with no biblical evidence, but sometimes they might refer to a verse like Genesis 12:2: “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.” This is often applied not only to blessings in general, but also to salvation, so that these preachers would say that God saves you only because he wants you to help save others. The purpose of this teaching is to encourage selflessness, evangelism, and a lifestyle of blessing others. Sometimes the purpose is to defend the moral propriety of desiring blessings from God, because one receives from God only so that he can bring blessings to other people. The teaching is false, and in fact silly and stupid. If God blesses you only to bless others, and if he blesses these other people only because he wants to bless others still, then it means that God wishes to bless no one at all. If God saves you only because he wants you to help save others by preaching the gospel, and if he wants to save those who would believe your preaching only because he wants them to help save others still, then it means that God wishes to save no one at all. The whole chain of people are only means to an end, but the blessings never attain their end, or the one that they are meant to reach, not even once. The false doctrine says that God saved me so that I could preach to others, so that they could be saved. And he saves these other people through me so that they could preach to others, so that these others could be saved. But this means that he really wants to save no one, since everyone’s salvation is only the means to another’s salvation, who is also the means to still another’s salvation, and so on forever. Such means have no ends, so that God has no “end” in mind, meaning that he wants to save no one. The whole process makes no sense, because if God wants to save anyone, he can save him directly by the gospel, without going through another person, and without saving anyone that he really does not want to save. It is self-defeating to adopt such a ridiculous doctrine in order to encourage selflessness and evangelism, or to justify our desire to receive blessings from God. The truth is that God saved me to save me, and then he uses my preaching to save others whom he also wants to save, and so on. All those whom God blesses and saves could be both means and ends, or rather, both ends and means. A Christian should desire blessings from God, so that he himself can benefit from them and also so that he can help others.//

At 34:25 PaulM gives his 5th reason why He's not a CHist. Because it encourages emotional rules that shouldn't be universalized. Some of what he says is true. Yet, here I think PaulM is now the one who's being excessive in the truth he's attempting to express. Since there is a place in Christian spirituality for suppressing negative thoughts and emotions. The apostle Paul was able to say in 2 Cor. 6:10 that he could be "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing". Piper has often cited this passage as non-contradictory even though apparently paradoxical. Such a mental state doesn't deny the reality, permissibility, understandability of grief and sorrow. But it affirms that in times of legitimate sorrow, there ought to be, and we ought to foster, an inner peace and joy in the Lord. In the same letter, Paul says in 2nd Cor. 10:3-5, "3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 *We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ*,..."

Taking every thought captive is a Christian discipline and duty not just for the Glory of God, but for our own spiritual and mental health. It's not something foreign to the Bible which Piper invented. What about those who suffer mentally? They are the ones who all the more need to depend on the special grace of God as well as the ordinary grace of God through their exercise and strengthening of their wills to discipline their thought life. Sometimes mental illness is biological, chemical, organic, genetic [&c.]. God can sometimes supernaturally heal those issues. Other times we might need to also use ordinary providence which includes medication and other earthly/secular means. But our main and primary resource ought to be God. I'm not trying to judge PaulM. But his deconversion might partially be due to his over-reliance on his [obviously] superior intellect. I wish I were as smart as him. Maybe he's never been so desperate that he's had to fully depend on God. Being that smart, it's easy to stop reading the Bible because you already know the propositional truth of the Scriptures. He's got a seminary education. But part of the power of the Bible is its [general] narrative thrust and [particular] narrative details which the Holy Spirit uses to transform us in ways that mere propositional truths, facts and statements cannot.

Re: 35:41, Are we spiritual failures if we're not always brimming with faith and joy? Even the Lord Jesus wept at Lazarus' tomb, dreaded the cross, and was a "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" [Isa. 53:3]. Faith is not always expressed in rejoicing confidence. It's expressed in different ways, including exercising our wills in determined grit to persevere in doing what's right contrary to feelings. At the same time, we ought to strive to become that ideal Christian who, like our Lord, "for the JOY that was set before him ENDURED the cross, despising the shame" [Heb. 12:2]. Christians aren't perfect, but they are being perfected from "glory to glory" [2 Cor. 3:18], being "renewed day by day" [2 Cor. 4:16], "from faith to faith" [Rom. 1:17]. The Christian's upward trajectory isn't always obvious. Sometimes going upwards spiritually looks, from the earthly perspective of both the Christian himself and others, as spiraling downwards. Because sanctification is primarily internal, and secondarily external. C.S. Lewis said something like God sees Christians as crawling infants trying to walk and falling down. He's pleased when we succeed, but understanding when we fail. Lewis said something like  "God is easy to please, but impossible to satisfy." We will only become perfect when we're glorified after death. So, Christians shouldn't get too down on themselves that they aren't all that they should be in faith, hope, love, joy and obedience. At the same time, we shouldn't lower the Biblical standard to meet our poor experience of the Christian life.

37:38 //"...and speaking less than truthful things about evil in the world in order to keep in step with your emotional obligations to God"//

But again, joy in the Lord isn't always at the surface level of our feelings or consciousness. Sometimes it's like a propane pilot light that's always burning. It's also manifested in a rational understanding and exercise of the will to find one's ultimate hope in the Lord, and trust in His good & wise overall providence despite present circumstances. Admittedly, this is easier to do if one is a Calvinist. [Though, subscribing to Calvinism can present its own unique difficulties as I can attest. But that's another topic.]

 We are to "16 REJOICE ALWAYS 17 pray without ceasing, 18 IN EVERYTHING GIVE THANKS; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" [1 Thess. 5:16-18]. Notice, it's give thanks *IN* all things/circumstances, NOT FOR all things. Nothing can take away from Paul's command "REJOICE in the Lord ALWAYS ; again I will say, Rejoice" [Phil. 4:4]. Now, if Christianity is false, then this is impossible and impracticable. But if Christianity is true and a supernatural religion with a supernatural enabling grace, then living this way is possible [even if only incrementally].

38:12 But that's precisely what 1 Cor. 10:31 states, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Again, if PaulM had been faithful in his Scripture reading this verse should have immediately popped up in his mind to cause him to modify/adjust his position.

The rest of the video has partially correct comments which I've already addressed above and given recommendations. That is, to read [my favorite all around apologist] Steve Hays' article, Vincent Cheung's articles, and postmillennial resources like Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry.

It turns out that Steve Hays has commented on Paul Maxwell. He did in his article "Christian Manhood" [posted Sunday, December 23, 2018]

Greg Bahnsen Audio Freely Downloadable

 

Many of Greg Bahnsen's audio lectures and debates are now freely downloadable at two places. At SermonAudio and at CMFnow. CMFnow also offers the free audio by other authors like Cornelius Van Til, Kenneth Gentry, Randy Booth, Steve Wilkins, Joe Morecraft et al.

CMFNOW mp3s HERE

The Bahnsen Project at SemonAudio: HERE