We pick up my dialogue with Keith Mathison about his book Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope.

Cavman: I guess this is where my defensiveness arises, to a degree. I see spiritual change as real change. If someone is really regenerate then they are being sanctified and having a positive influence in their family and community. As the church in a region or nation grows, there are material benefits that overflow into the region and nation. Many of these things may be common grace benefits, but are still an outflowing of the work of Christ.
For instance, where Christianity has become the dominant religion, there is usually an increase in material prosperity, health care, technological development and moral standards. There also seems to be a decrease in things like political corruption. As I ponder the influence of Islam on cultures, I see very advanced cultures being suffocated, increases in poverty etc. It was Christians, for instance that put an end to slavery in the Western world. Hopefully Christians will put an end to it in other parts of the world.
I don’t see this as making me postmillennialist. Like Gary DeMarr, I suspect we think things are worse now because we know more about other parts of the world. Worse things happened before, but people didn’t know about them and most things didn’t make the history books.
I get the impression that there is a similarity in the hermeneutics of premillennialism and postmillennialism toward literalism. Many of the prophecies are in poetic sections of the prophets. I don’t think I’m trying to spiritualize the texts away, but understand them properly rather then think they must be fulfilled in a particular way like the Pharisees did, thereby missing Messiah, and some premillennialists do. “All the nations” for instance. I believe all nations will be represented among the elect (thinking temporally), but I don’t think this means there has to be a worldwide revival so that all the nations are coming at the same time. I’d love to see a worldwide revival, and the conversion of most Jews- but I don’t see Scripture necessitating that.
I’d better think of a question, huh? Sorry about the digressions. You mentioned theonomy. Perhaps some are uncomfortable with postmillennialism due to its connection with theonomy. Not all postmillennialists are theonomists, but all theonomists are postmillennialists. You’ve spent more time studying this than me, and have more relationships with theonomists than I do. What is the bridge from your understanding of postmillennialism and yours?
KM: I don’t think there’s any need for defensiveness since I’m not arguing against what seems to be your main point here. I heartily agree that spiritual change is real change. The contrast I am drawing is not between spiritual and real. That’s a false contrast that assumes or implies that the spiritual is not real. Instead, I’m drawing a contrast between visible and invisible. As I mentioned in the previous response: “What I object to is the idea that the growth of Christ’s kingdom is entirely invisible and confined to the spiritual dimension of existence and will have no visible manifestations in history.” The words “entirely” and “confined” and “no” are key. There are aspects to the growth of Christ’s kingdom that are invisible, that occur in the spiritual dimension of existence. These are very real. Regeneration is invisible but very real. My point is that the effects of the growth of Christ’s kingdom should not be confined to only the invisible spiritual dimension of reality. The effects of sin, of Satan’s kingdom, are not thus confined, and neither are the effects of redemption and the growth of Christ’s kingdom.
(more…)
Read Full Post »