Theonomic postmillennialism: nail, meet head

Some weeks ago I wrote on the topic "Postmillennialism - a theology of hope? On the contrary, a theology of hope misplaced", writing about how the thought-world and motivations that postmillennial advocates recommend in our service differ fatally from the thought-world and motivations of the apostles.

Today I came across this related quote which is so succinct, so apposite and relevant, that I gladly share it. The nail meets the head, without a word out of place. Firstly, the writer quotes a theonomic postmillennilist (which Googling reveals is CREC minister Uriesou Brito), who wrote as follows:

Our postmillennialism is deeply embedded in our lives. This is more than a preference for historical optimism. Postmillennialism is how we see the Bible moving. It is far from a mere academic discussion. In fact, it would not be easy to function happily in the CREC without that eschatological predisposition. It impacts everything from our preaching/teaching to our education and interpretation of the times.

And here, in response, Jacob Gonzales nails it:

So much for catholicity. Postmillennialism, in this formulation, is a hermeneutic rather than an eschatology. It shapes and determines the meaning of the prophets, rather than being shaped and determined by them.

None of the Reformed confessions speak this way. Our hope is in the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead. There is no way, as this makes clear, to function happily within one of these churches without presupposing a very peculiar modern formulation of postmillennialism. Everyday a new application of this hermeneutic reveals itself, whether it be masks veiling the glory of God or some other religious-political commitment. I don’t see how binding the consciences of the sheep to eschatology in this way does anything but create schism.

The next commentator is also apposite: 

And so much for Ben Merkle’s sermon at the CREC general assembly (or whatever they call it) about 10 years ago. He urged that those things must not become the shibboleths of the CREC. It was a very encouraging sermon. Sad to see it so blatantly rejected.

To see an example of that, see this, in which postmillennialism has become the only real motivation for Christian service or strategic thinking, and paedocommunion has become the sina qua non of authentic Christian child-rearing.

Beware of theonomic postmillennialism. As it works out its presuppositions and conclusions consistently throughout someone's system of thought and church life, the negative fruits will become more and more apparent, and the churches and believers embracing it will become more and more sectarian and political in outlook and strident in tone, and it will be increasingly difficult for other believers to find common ground with them in any practical endeavour. Note that that's not just me observing that - that's what those of that persuasion are saying themselves. I'd plead with those of this persuasion to notice what a mistaken place they've got themselves into, and return. The mainstream Reformed tradition is not something that was discovered (or recovered) in the 1970s in a particular North American cultural milieu. There is another way, and a better way, and one that is explicitly shaped and determined by reading and submitting to the New Testament and then reading the whole Bible chronology in the light of the authoritative interpretation given there.

Choosing barbarity

It is difficult to find words to describe the British parliament voting to legalise of a mother killing her unborn child, for any reason she wishes, at any time, up until the moment of birth (at which  point it then becomes in law a heinous offence, leaving the perpetrator liable to the maximum penalty in British law of life imprisonment). This, as if there were something magical about passing down the birth canal which transforms the baby from having no rights whatsoever, fewer rights in law even than a pet hamster, into someone who suddenly has the full set of human rights.

This distinction (which end of the birth canal you are) is of course entirely arbitrary, and it remains to be seen what judges and parliamentarians will do with it in future. How long until it is argued that Mother Smith was just about to have the child hacked to death or have its skull pierced and brains vaccuumed out, as was her hard-won  legal right, when unfortunately labour began, and child was unexpectedly delivered two weeks prematurely, depriving said Mother of her rights to bash its skull in instead of now having a legal duty to raise it responsibly and lovingly to adulthood? Why does a 40-week baby  still in the womb have zero rights, whilst, if born 5 weeks early, those rights are received? It can't be because "in the womb the baby is dependent upon its mother", because in law, parents have non-negotiable responsibility to take care of their children until adulthood. Baby is dependent upon its mother after being born too. And so as I say, how long will this current, inconsistent settlement stand (for the previous inconsistent settlement  could not)? And what is this horrific doctrine, that anyone who is dependent has no rights and can be killed, by any means whatsoever, without consequence? Who in the world is independent in any case? Do all those who voted for this reach their current stage in life having been abandoned at the moment of  birth to their own glorious independence? Last time  I checked, we had a government dominated by self-proclaimed socialists, at any rate.

The brute fact is that parliament has voted that the weak and vulnerable can legally  be killed, should their lives be deemed to be undesirable by those who hold power  over them. We delude ourselves, of course, if we pretend that this is a new thing. Thus has human government, human authority, ever operated, when it has been allowed to. Thus has the British government long operated, though for the 60 years until now in the case of human abortion under the pretence that it was still legally a crime and that there were proper "checks and balances" to prevent abuses, as if the ending of innocent life (rather than vigorous activity to defend it) were not in itself always an inherently heinous abuse. We pretend to be sophisticated, and we look down on the moral reprobates of previous centuries. The Romans, if they did not want a child, left it on a rubbish heap to die from exposure after its birth. We pretend that they are savages, but we are enlightened, because.... because what? Because we do our killing using pills, scalpels and vacuums instead of leaving it to the elements?

God, have mercy. This is us. This is who we are. This is what we want, and this is how we wish to live our lives. If anything should get in the way of self, then let its blood be poured out, has been our cry. Now we begin to throw off the pretence and to show who we are more openly. We hate God, and we love death. And God is allowing us to have what we wish for. God, save us from ourselves. May the death of your Son deliver us, and deliver the innocent who are assigned for slaughter.

"The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel"

I don't particularly remember coming across this document - "The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel" - at the time. I am not intending to comment on it as a whole. I do want to comment upon section 8, "The Church":

WE AFFIRM that the primary role of the church is to worship God through the preaching of his word, teaching sound doctrine, observing baptism and the Lord’s Supper, refuting those who contradict, equipping the saints, and evangelizing the lost. We affirm that when the primacy of the gospel is maintained that this often has a positive effect on the culture in which various societal ills are mollified. We affirm that, under the lordship of Christ, we are to obey the governing authorities established by God and pray for civil leaders.

WE DENY that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church. Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute a central part of the church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ, her head. We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.

These paragraphs reflect the concern of conservative evangelicals to guard against "the social gospel". In terms of the concerns that conservative evangelicals had/have, the social gospel would be seen as defining the mission of the church in terms of proclaiming Christ's love and advancing his kingdom by fighting against injustices in society. It is seen as the on-the-ground program of theological liberalism: the activities that churches give themselves to as their defining mission when the stop having the gospel of Christ incarnate, crucified, risen, ascended and returning, and all the consequences (such as the necessity of preaching this gospel, calling upon people to repent and believe upon him to receive salvation) at the heart of their life.

As always, there is the possibility of over-reaction. Christ commands his people to be zealous for good works. We are to demonstrate his love and compassion in action, and not only as a way of testifying to the gospel, but because the love of Christ dwells in us too and God's love is to be made known to the nations. A church that has no concern for good works does not reflect the Scriptures of either the Old or New Testament, which consistently testify to God's special concern for the suffering, the abandoned, the needy, in society.... and also consistently testify to his wrath against complacent religious people whose lifestyles proclaim that they do not particularly care.

I read the above section, its affirmations and denials, seeking to understand how the statement (i.e. its authors and endorsers) see these things.

Having read it, I'm still not sure, which is a curious thing.... because such statements are intended to remove ambiguity, to clarify, to advance understanding by being specific.

Why do I say this?

Firstly, the statement leaves an awful lot unsaid. The "primary" role of the church is spoken of. Does the church have secondary (or tertiary) roles? If so, what are they? Or is "primary role" a synonym for "only role" or "only required role", or something else? We're not told. The importance of maintaining the "primacy" of the gospel is maintained, which sounds good and something I am likely to agree with; but unfortunately it too is not explained. What things threaten the primacy of the gospel has to be inferred from the surrounding context, but there's multiple ways in which that could be done, so, we are left to give our best effort.

The church upholding the "primacy" of the gospel is said to "often" have a positive effect on society, by mollifying (Britannica dictionary: "to make (someone) less angry : to calm (someone) down"; Collins dictionary: "If you mollify someone, you do or say something to make them less upset or angry. ... Synonyms: pacify, quiet, calm, compose") societal ills; I wonder what that is intended to mean? Presumably in some way to reduce or remove, to a limited extent, those ills? To what end(s)?

So, having read the affirmations, a lot is unclear - but one of the good things about denials is that these can add a lot of clarity. Unfortunately....

... again, with the denials, the language is very ambiguous. Political or social activism (which are not defined, presumably have considerable overlap), are not to be viewed as "integral components" of the gospel. What would that mean? An earlier section defines the gospel as follows: "WE AFFIRM that the gospel is the divinely-revealed message concerning the person and work of Jesus
Christ". If the gospel is (which I agree with!) a divinely revealed message of good news about Jesus, then what would it mean for societal activism to be an "integral component"? Does it mean to deny that the doing of the good works is not itself part of the gospel? Or that proclaiming their necessity is not? Or something else? Since the gospel, by definition, is the proclamation of Christ, then the proclaiming of the importance of the church doing good works cannot be any "component" of the gospel; so what is the purpose of the word "integral" in the denial?

"Or primary to the mission of the church" - again, that word primary. What is the concern here? Something might be compulsory, essential, obligatory, required - and yet not be "primary". For example, I am obliged to all sorts of things, though my primary duty as a human being is to love God with all my being, and to love my neighbour as myself. What would it mean if I denied that all the things I'm required to do were "primary" - what is the importance of making this distinction? No doubt it has one, and that's not something I'm contradicting; but it's not explained. Is the church required to be conspicuous in good works? Are we intended to achieve this whilst avoiding that particular local churches should be conspicuous in particular good works? Is it being said that the church, as the church, officially and outwardly, must keep quiet about good works, but merely enable and encourage individual believers to perform them in a private capacity, so as to not cause misunderstanding about the church's "primary" mission? What is, and what isn't, being said here?

As noted above, what social and political activism are isn't defined, but, in the denials as in the affirmations, the emphasis in what is said falls upon improving the nation's legal code. Here, what comes immediately next, is "Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society". That's an interesting flow/development of the statement; I wonder what the exact thinking is here? Are believers not meant also to utilise lawful means to alleviate the suffering of God's image-bearers, and to allow the love of God which is in their hearts by the Holy Spirit to be expressed to those in need? I do presume and believe that the authors of the statement think so.... but why is it not discussed?

The statement goes on to deny that the non-primary activity of attempting to change laws (as I say, I don't know why that is specially emphasised) is evidence of saving faith. Did anyone ever suggest otherwise? That sounds truly bizarre. Neither (the denial continues), does it constitute a "a central part of the church’s mission". Again, that word, "central". Does it constitute a required part of the mission? We're not told. This seems to be a non-denial denial. Are there really people who think that specifically changing laws is the central part of the church's mission? If there are, they must dwell a long, long, long way from the orbit of your average conservative evangelical church.

Does the church's duty, given by Christ, include good works? What can be affirmed or denied about that? How do those works related to the church's proclamation that Christ is Lord, and that in him God's love to the nations is declared? The statement appears to have nothing to say on this subject. It's not that I agree or disagree with it; it merely hasn't spoken.

Now I find that profoundly odd, and curious. I could, of course, do some more research. Presumably it was discussed at the time. I can't help noticing it, though. In fact, I looked through the statement specifically to see what it said about these questions, because it is an area I have concerns about. When outsiders say that evangelicals are far too concerned about laying down the strict confines of orthodoxy and it'd be great if they demonstrated more energy in condescending to help suffering people in their very messy, practical situations, it might well be because, ever since evangelicals made it a priority to clarify that they do not believe "the social gospel", we don't seem to have made it the same priority to so clearly, and conspicuously, make it clear that our lives are handed over to showing love to people in need. If something is not quite right with us, then would it not lead to statements like the above being written. Is it just me? Does it not strike you as odd that the statement has the ambiguities, and the omissions, that it does? Where does that come from, and how does that happen? Does the above statement strike you like paragraphs written by people who are busy getting their hands dirty, sleeves rolled up, sharing the love of Christ with people in deep need?

If we read the rest of the statement, the specific concerns of the authors in relation to society and culture in writing the statement are clearly to do with refuting sexual immorality, feminism, identity politics, "Black Lives Matter"-adjacent-type ideology (though remember this is 2018, not 2020). One line that repeats the ideas of section 8 is "And we emphatically deny that lectures on social issues (or activism aimed at reshaping the wider culture) are as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel and the exposition of Scripture." I again find myself wondering whether there has really been anyone of any note in, around or adjacent to Bible churches who has said that lectures on social issues are "as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel". But the next sentence is interesting: "Historically, such things tend to become distractions that inevitably lead to departures from the gospel." What are the "things" here? The only thing that seems to work grammatically is to say that it's the lectures and activism themselves, aiming to reshape the wider culture. i.e. They're positively dangerous. Does this only mean lectures/activism that are simply wrong (e.g. campaigning to redefine marriage) in themselves? Presumably not, since that's not a "distraction", that's just an evil. Evangelicals wouldn't speak of proclaiming false doctrine and denying God's creation order (things that are the concern of other parts of the statement) as merely a "distraction". The sentence comes in section 14, on racism. So does it mean that if the church speaks out or campaigns excessively about racism, then that is what tends to become a distraction and leads people away from the gospel? What in history is being referred to here? Must we actually, if we see actual (rather than pseudo-)racism prefer to keep quiet and do nothing because the defence of the gospel requires it? This sounds an extraordinary doctrine.... but it's outlined so briefly that it's really impossible to know.

Again, as I say, I could do more research and look more into this; as a statement from 2018, presumably there was debate about it at the time. For now, it's filed away in my head. But I must say that if this statement was intended to perform the normal function of such a statement, i.e. to clarify things and advance the state of understanding of one's position, by carefully distinguishing things that differ with accuracy and precision, so that the truth shines more brightly, then at least in the areas that I looked at it for, it badly failed.

The thought-world of Christ and the New Testament

Currently I'm reading the recently-published "Theonomy Old and New: A Reformed Baptist Assessment", which thus far is a very good book, critiquing a significant error, and one which after seeming to go into abeyance has seen a revival in recent years.

I was pleased and helped to see articulation and argument that it is not simply that paedobaptism in general is a root error that leads to prepares the way for receiving theonomist ideas, but specifically that theonomy is a more consistent outworking of some of the paedobaptist hermeneutic. Once the arguments that are made for Reformed paedobaptism are taken seriously, and allowed to come out of the narrow realm of disputes over baptism, and to influence other areas of theology, theonomy is one of the consequences. The things said within the paedobaptist hermeneutic about the precise nature of covenantal continuity can't be boxed up. The Reformers were neither paedocommunionists nor theonomists (and this is demonstrated clearly), but there were certain tensions in their arguments and overall views of God's covenant when they addressed paedobaptism specifically, which consistent thinkers will feel pressure to logically resolve one way or the other: either by ditching paedobaptism, or adopting, progressively, more and more unbiblical and wrong doctrines: paedocommunion, theonomy, political postmillennialism, stronger forms of preterism (e.g. interpreting the book of Revelation through the lens of preterism) and the progressive de-emphasising of Biblical mission with its replacement by deeper levels of political involvement and lobbying and/or attempts to replace other existing churches rather than to get the gospel to the unreached. The book hasn't made all of these links and I expect that it won't make all of them, (though where I've got to, has made several), but it's a set of logical connections I've been seeing more clearly.

Together with other recent studies, this book has also helped me more clearly articulate another matter. It's long been my view that, essentially, to be Biblical, we should not only be able to explain how our views and practices agree with the Bible's, but also that our way of seeing things should be such that, in the same situation, we'd actually say what the Bible says, with the same emphases. That is to say: there's something wrong with the posture by which, when our practices are challenged from Scripture, that we have to appeal to lots of doubtful small-print; or, if asked to explain a doctrine, then most of our explanation is caveats, carve-outs and apologies, rather than demonstrating that God's truth here is good and wholesome. To give a specific example, I can recall hearing explanations of Ephesians 5:21-31 (once at a wedding) where the main burden of the preacher appeared to be to tell us all the things that Paul didn't say - one was left with the distinct impression that he was embarrassed by the things that Paul did say. This can't be right.

As I say, it seems to me the right view that, to be Biblical, we must think as the Bible does, without fear or embarrassment. If we feel either of those, then we have further need of the transforming of our minds (Romans 12:1-2), so that we can better see and understand just how God's will is good, perfect and wholesome. Living in our Creator's world, it's those who don't have the same way of thinking as their Creator who have the explaining to do and ought to feel that something's wrong whilst they explain.

What connection does this have to the book and topics mentioned above? Simply this: there's a whole cluster of doctrines there which, when their proponents explain them, always require them to bring out what is (for them) implicit and in the background... but almost never (in their telling) makes it into the foreground. Or if it is in the foreground, it's in the foreground of the claimed interpretation of an Old Testament writer, and never makes it to be front-and-centre of any of the inspired (whether from the Son of God, or from his commissioned apostles) explanations of how to look at this subject area, or how they actually exegete the Old Testament. They are "doctrines of the gaps". Their proponents largely explain "how to read this-or-that text through the lens of the doctrine", rather than demonstrating that Jesus Christ, or Paul, or Peter, etc., had a specific burden to unfold and unpack that doctrine, glory in it, and make sure that the believers lived in the light of it in their daily lives. That's a very strong indication that the doctrine is false. And why? Because - and this is key - because in all the relevant areas, the New Testament writers are not silent, but they have clear doctrines that they self-consciously, deliberately explained, and applied. There are no gaps into which to insert other doctrines.

We can make this concrete. I've argued this recently in the specific case of postmillennialism: postmillennialism, if taken seriously, teaches its adherents to have a specific way of framing their thinking in regard of this present age, and how to see it, and how to live in it. Those consequences naturally and necessarily flow from its claims. But the New Testament has a different way of teaching believers to orient their thoughts towards this present age, and the two are different. You can read that post to see my argument for that. We can say the same about paedobaptism itself. The New Testament is not empty of detailed and deliberate explanations about how the New Covenant works, and how it relates in relation to the previous covenants (e.g. throughout the book of Hebrews, and the book of Galatians). Paedobaptism attempts to argue their schemes about precisely how circumcision and baptism relate, and whether the New Covenant is essentially "an administration" of a covenant with few practical differences in implementation to what came before, largely rely upon a priori claims, and explaining how isolated verses in other contexts can be read in harmony with their claims, rather than exegeting the abundance of available New Testament material that is specifically focussed upon these questions. (Here's an example of where I argue this in more detail in responding to a particular claim).

Paedocommunion, again, is not argued directly from statements that the apostles or Christ make about the Lord's Supper that would directly lead us to understand its nature and who the proper recipients of it would be, but from theological abstractions that are argued to lie in the background and indirect inferences from them.

Theonomy (and here's something related that I wrote recently that brings this out in response to a specific statement by a theonomist) does likewise. The New Testament has a clear doctrine of nationhood, that has been radically reshaped by the coming of the kingdom. A new nation, the true Israel, has been formed, which has out-moded the still-existing-but-fading-away nations of this present age. Christians live in a new epoch, through the resurrection of Christ, and are part of the nation that is eternal - which is defined not by ethnic descent, nor by physical boundaries, but by their second birth and the presence of the Holy Spirit. The previous understanding of nationhood has been transformed and changed. Meanwhile, the kingdoms of this world - as is well-argued in the book linked above - have been handed to the rule of the Gentiles, and we have been told that this is God's ordination (Romans 13) and that we should submit to them except in some clearly-defined and limited exceptional cases. So: the New Testament has a clear doctrine of nationhood, which the apostles laboured to teach; there is no vacuum into which theonomist thought can be injected.

If you do attempt to inject these various doctrines as the purported background of New Testament thought, then you can only do so by replacement. You're not filling in the presuppostions of apostolic thought; you're switching that thought for something else. The apostles had their own system of thought, and it led them to major on, emphasise and unfold the things that they did, instead of emphasising things like the reasons for baptising infants, capturing nation-states for theonomic rule, or taking heart and viewing the second coming of Christ in light of the doctrines of postmillennialism. They had a thought-world: we should live in it. If we do, then we can't accept these doctrines, we can't see them as harmless, and we must explicitly reject them. The people who believe these doctrines see them as very important, and as transformative. They're right. But also, more fundamentally, they're wrong, and it will help believers greatly to understand how that is, and the consequences of it. Which thought-world we live in matters, greatly: and we must live in that of Christ, as revealed authoritatively in his word.

Charismatic doctrine, charismatic reality

Doctrinally, I am a cessationist, which does not at all mean that I think supernatural events cannot or do not happen. Rather, it means that I think that the New Testament sign and revelation gifts have ceased. That is to say, that the state of affairs by which particular individuals were gifted to serve the early church in the role of apostles, prophets, miracle-workers or tongues-speakers or miraculous interpreters of tongues has ended. It belonged to the age of the apostles and incomplete inscripturated revelation, and ended when that age passed. From now, until the return of Christ, God intends the church to be ruled through an objective, written revelation - our fidelity to which will be judged upon the last day.

I can understand why an honest person, of honourable intent, might be persuaded otherwise, especially given the complicated ways in which people in general make up their minds. I  think that he would have to make significant and serious mistakes in doing so, and that further study without external pressures would lead him to change his mind. But nevertheless, I believe that a brother or sister in Christ could honestly and honourably believe that the Scriptures teach a non-cessationist, i.e. charismatic, position.

What I cannot understand, however, is how such a person with due respect for the Scriptures, could tolerate the practices of any charismatic church or movement I've ever come across. Rather, they ought to find it as offensive as I do. Theory is one thing, but practice is another. 

So, for example, you can believe that there are prophets today - but this is only honourable if you also believe in excommunication for false prophets. Once someone says "thus says the Lord", if they say something that it can be shown the Lord has not said, they're out, and that's it. That's is a clear and consistent standard in both Testaments, and never wavers in the slightest (e.g. Ezekiel 22:28, Jeremiah 14:14, Deuteronomy 18:22, Matthew 7:15, Romans 16:18, Revelation 22:18-19). There is no category, anywhere in Scripture, of the benign or sincerely misguided false prophet, who can be simply encouraged to try again next time. You can only believe in that category by sheer invention.

Similarly, it is quite clear that in the Bible, tongues-speaking was the miraculous speaking of a foreign language that could be understood if a native speaker happened to be present, and which should only be spoken in church if an interpreter was able to interpret it (Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 14). The "tongues of angels" (in chapter 13) would a) still be an interpretable language subject to the rules of 1 Corinthians 14, and b) is quite clearly a piece of hypothetical hyperbole for the purposes of argument, no different to the person whose faith can physically move mountains from one place to another in the next verse. The concept of an uninterpretable "heavenly" language, which thus can be freely babbled into the air, apart from insulting the inhabits of heaven, does not exist anywhere in the Bible, and violates every rule which Paul set down for the early Corinthians to follow in regard of the tongues gift.

The amount of charlatanry and quackery that pervades the charismatic world (come get your holy oil, just £200 a bottle! come get your miracle! let the man of God come and touch you! I've seen a revival that's going to sweep our city that you need to get ready for in the next 3 years - and I've seen this every year for the last 50! Oh, and here's a prophecy specially delivered from heaven's throne-room about the future health of your cat) ought to have all sincere charismatics up in spiritual arms day and night. They ought to be doing very little else other than creating spiritual whip-chords to drive all this fakery and blasphemy out of God's holy temple tout-de-suite, lest judgment swiftly fall. But as it is, they accommodate themselves to it: it's part of the furniture. It goes with the territory. If they were to rise up and apply some godly church discipline to all the fakery and buffoonery, or separate themselves from it otherwise, then they soon instinctively realise that they'd soon be in a church in which you only need your thumbs to count the membership, and likely that'll persist after accidentally putting one of them in the blender.

An excellent point I've seen made a few times in recent years is that if God has, in a special way, been blessing the Charismatic movement with supernatural gifts of discernment in recent decades... then how come the movement has had such an endless catalogue of frauds, thieves, child-abusers and rapists promoted as figure-heads throughout that time? Why did nobody use their gift to discern their presence and expose them? To just pick out one example, how come not one person who possessed this New Testament gift managed to discern Mike Pilivachi, for example? Or why not call out someone outside their movement, which would also be fine? There have certainly been plenty to choose from? Why are all the Christian leaders living double lives exposed through the ordinary means, and never through the gift of supernatural discernment? Can we go somewhere to find where all these supernaturally discerning people have explained their 100% failure rate and inability to out-perform anyone else who didn't have such a gift? Why so quiet about that?

Jesus said that by their fruits you shall know them.

Make disciples, and baptise them

Peter Leithart is very, very, very clever. He's someone whose learning makes me feel that I need to return to nursery school and try again to see if perhaps next time I could reduce the distance between us.

One of the dangers, though, of being so clever, is that you can talk yourself into believing all kinds of things, which a lesser mind would never be able to accept because they're too preposterous.

Which brings us to this Tweet:

Baptize nations, Jesus says. That is: Do for all nations what Yahweh did for Israel at the sea.

Chosen nation status isn't here cancelled, but universalized, as one people after another is incorporated into the chosen nation, each receiving a new political identity by baptismal death and resurrection, each called to its unique historical vocation.

Concerning the grammar of the Great Commission "make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name", much ink has been expended (and if we're going to expend ink on anything, I can think of few better places, so no complaints there!). How do these clauses correlate? Are the nations baptised and then discipled? Must one be a self-conscious disciple to be baptised? Are the disciples called out from the nations, or do nations each themselves become some sort of corporate disciple, nationally brought under the tutelage of Christ?

As with many such questions, the grammar can actually bear more than one construction, and the syntax isn't finally determinative (even whilst we can argue about which is the more natural or likely meaning)....

.... but on the other hand, what the disciples actually went out and did in response to this command is recorded in great detail and is as plain as the proverbial pikestaff. And no less plain is what they then instructed those disciples to carry on doing, and also what they entirely omitted to ever make mention of in their teaching.

So plain, that only someone very, very clever and very decided upon using that cleverness to believe and uphold a doctrine that appeals to them, could fail to register. (It's somewhat akin to arguing about Jesus' words to Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church" - if by this, Jesus was telling Peter about an unbroken line of universal pontiffs based in Rome, succeeding from him to all generations, then Peter never afterwards appears to have known anything about it, and that stubborn fact remains no matter what you can argue that the better syntax-level understanding of the words is or isn't).

The New Testament has a nation in it. That nation entirely supersedes and relativises all other nations. The kingdom of God is not a collection of nations, beginning with the apostate 1st century Israel and then one-by-one progressively assimilating one more nation at a time; and if it were, it has not yet begun, if the New Testament's teaching about discipleship means anything at all. The New Testament's actual teaching gives no countenance to the fever-dreams of some post-millennial theonomic Presbyterians, who hold that once your nation is covenanted, it's always covenanted, end of - and nations never really cease to exist, or come into existence, so there's always an ever-growing number of covenanted nations. The New Testament explicitly and directly redefines the meaning of nations. There are the old nations, which are passing away. They still exist as this old age still endures, and they certainly still have much relevance to our lives; but they are nevertheless passing away. (Analagously: my marriage to my wife endures and is deeply important, notwithstanding my membership of the bride of Christ - it will continue until death do us part, and nothing about Christ's espousal to his eschatological bride can reduce the importance of this relationship in the here and now; and yet, at the same time, human marriages are already passing away, from the New Testament's viewpoint - 1 Corinthians 7:29-31). The kingdom of God is the one nation that will remain, and it exists where there are real disciples of Jesus, who have been born again of his Spirit and are then pass through baptism as individuals and who now belong to his glorious Body. Other nations are around: but also already fading.

If Jesus was telling his apostles to assimilate old-order nations, one-by-one, into his kingdom, as the constituent parts of his kingdom, then they utterly misunderstood, failing to either do it, or tell anyone else to do it, or explaining a theology that would ground it. More than that, they were false teachers, who openly, clearly and pervasively taught in its place a new theology of nationhood that was simply wrong, because Jesus was actually still asserting the old theology of nationhood.

Peter Leithart is very clever. This is a great gift. But his postmillennial/theonomic beliefs, on this subject, have blinded him to what the New Testament does straightforwardly and explicitly and pervasively teach, both at a doctrinal level, and in terms of what program the apostles of Jesus actually implemented.

(So note, in the screenshot above, John is correct, not specifically because of the syntax, but because of the New Testament's sufficient and authoritative record of what was actually then done and taught by the apostles).

Christians' children are worse off if not baptised during infancy?

"Those who claim that Hebrew infants should be circumcised, but that ours should not be baptized, make God more gracious to Jews than to Christians." - Peter Martyr Vermigli (Commentary on Romans, chapter 4 verse 11)

This is, of course, an archetypal supporting argument within circles that teach infant baptism for children of believers. And on the surface, it has an immediate plausibility: if Jews' children received the sign of welcome into the covenant family, then why would Christians' children no longer possess that sign? Has this privilege been withdrawn from them?

It is, however, not truly an argument at all. It is not an argument, but a re-wording of the conclusion. It is a statement that only follows if the actual argument has already been accepted. If the actual argument has not already been accepted, it does precisely nothing to advance it.

How so? Lying behind the statement is the belief that circumcision and baptism are not only divine ordinances with similarities as well as differences, but are fundamentally and essentially the same thing. Any differences are of strictly limited import and finally of no real weight in any practical matter, for they are both "the outward sign of the covenant of grace", signifying and sealing the recipient's membership of that covenant.

And note there that another concept has been admitted which must be viewed in a certain way, in order for that equation to work: there must be a "covenant of grace", and this covenant of grace cannot merely be a unifying concept for understanding God's overall plans throughout salvation history. It is absolutely required that all actual historical covenants (or, at least all those after the fall) found in the Bible, again, despite all their differences, are in the end found to be essentially the same thing, and these differences all found to be of no final weight or import. All Biblical covenants in history do not simply flow from, reflect or advance the purposes of the covenant of grace.... rather, they are "administrations" of this covenant of grace. Note specifically that what cannot be the case is that the New Covenant is the one actualisation in history of an eternal covenant, i.e. the New Covenant is "the covenant of grace" with all the preceding covenants being entities that should be approached firstly upon their own terms, whilst still being intended to ultimately reveal, lead to, and having a deeply important underlying continuity with it. That position (i.e. the Reformed Baptist position) is not enough; all covenants must fundamentally be the covenant of grace. There is really, in practice, only one covenant, under different names and times. The signs and outward accompaniments may change, but the covenant is always one and the same. Jews and Christians must, at the root of it, be the same thing: members of the one-and-only salvific covenant. Again I repeat: we are not talking here about underlying unity, but of to-all-intents-and-purposes identity.

Only then, if all this is accepted, can you speak as Peter Martyr does. Only then can we say that the immediate offspring of a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh before the coming of Christ has received "more grace" than an infant born to believing Christian parents, if the former (assuming that it's a male child) is circumcised on the eighth day, whilst the latter is not sprinkled with sacramental water. But as I say: that's actually the thing to be proved. In and of itself, "but then that means God has been less gracious to Christians than he has been to Old Testament Jews!" is not any sort of argument. It is merely the re-statement of the thing to be proved, but using different words. And as such, in all honesty, it ought to be struck out of the canons of paedobaptist argumentation. It has no actual content that is specific to itself. It simply re-labels the other, real arguments. It is not a supporting sub-argument: it is merely the begging of the question.