New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:
4 Likes
I know this is painting with an unfairly wide brush, and someone could easily call foul, but itās been my anecdotal experience that the people Iāve known who are the most drawn to Moscow are the ones who seem to have the least first-hand experience with burying loved ones. They havenāt buried their fathers. They havenāt buried children. The clan is mostly intact. They havenāt driven people to cancer treatments. They themselves are in pretty okay health, etc.
The bitterness of death causes us to cry, āCome, Lord Jesusā with a longing that can only be satisfied in the age to come. No eschatological position or sentimental liturgy, or notions of optimism for Godās dealings with this transient world will suffice. Give me the eschaton; give me eternity! Nothing else will do.
Until death is finally cast into the lake of fire, it remains an enemy, and sin remains a destroyer which keeps all men ā including our sons and daughters apart from a personal faith in Jesus Christ ā bound for hell. Life is too short for us to get confused about this.
Need to stick to that old time religion.
āBut our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.ā - Philippians 3:20
āFor we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.ā - 2 Cor. 5:1
āWhom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.ā - Psalm 73:25
5 Likes
Dear brothers,
Iād like to respond to both the original post and the comment under it. I think it is a mistake in tactics and a poor argument to tie paedocommunion and postmillennialism together. Itās a bit of a red herring that introduces an unnecessary debate into the bigger battle and distracts us. Itās also divisive within your own community.
The issue with the CREC isnāt Postmillennial eschatology, though many of them hold to it. Their issue is paedocommunion. I think itās best to stick to that fight. Itās a fight I can gladly join you in. But donāt muddy the waters. That is a tactic that you, Pastor Bayly, use too often, and it undermines the strength of your argument.
Furthermore, it is divisive within your own community. What I mean is that there are good postmillennial brothers fighting alongside you to reform the church in the Evangel Presbytery. I am one of them. But I donāt want to charge into the battle against paedocommunion only to find myself taking arrows in the back from my own people. I donāt care if you donāt hold to my eschatology. I think you should because I believe it to be the biblical position. But if we are working to call the CREC to repentance on paedocommunion, donāt bring up unnecessary distractions.
To be really frank, when you do this, it undermines your allies in the battle they may be facing against paedocommunion in their churches.
Now to respond to Jason Anderson: I agree that our hope is in Christās return and the defeat of death, but postmillennial people hold to that hope too. That said, Christianity isnāt an escapist religion. We can long for heaven all day long, but God hasnāt seen fit to have Christ return yet. We have a mission, and I believe that mission is to see the kingdom spread throughout the earth, which will be transformative to this transient world. Therefore, while one may have to face serious suffering that makes them long to escape this world, it may not be Godās will that they do so just yet. Be careful, brother. Old-time religion wasnāt escapist. The Puritans suffered greatly and still had great hope that their suffering would make an impact in this world. I long to see Jesus, but I also long to see the church victorious.
Joshua longed for a heavenly kingdom and yet still led the conquest of the promised land. It was Godās will to give him both.
2 Likes
Dear Joseph,
Itās good to hear from you, and Iām thankful for the interaction.
I agree that itās important not to conflate the two. However, I believe itās clear that there is an organic connection between Moscowās particular brand of postmillennialism and paedocommunion, in a way that makes it difficult to talk about the one without the other.
Iām certainly aware that postmillennialism has a rich legacy in the Puritans, spanning down to Edwards. But Iād again just want to note that there was something the postmillennialism of the past which had the Puritans to stop short of communing children. Their postmillennialism was not one which made space for practices which obfuscated the nature of the new birth, and the plain notion of what it was for a person to profess saving faith and be recognized as a believer: not just a member of the covenant community of the church, but a Christian who has professed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
As you rightly point out, Christianity isnāt an escapist religion. I agree that we cannot be living as though weāre just waiting to get out of here. We do have work to do. But one of the realities we donāt escape is that our children need to be born again from the heart. Itās this reality where I fear Moscow paedocommunion invites escape. Sacramentalism provides for a rather quaint covenantal view of the family that seemsāat least to this baptistāto go beyond what Reformed orthodoxy has done in the past.
We all understand that not all Israel is Israel. I am content that Moscow understands this, at least deep down. But their ideal of a postmillennial Christendom seems to lead to a view where everyone gets to be Israel until itās proven that they arenāt, and so the children are communed. Isnāt this how every Christian parent would love to view their children? Isnāt it easier to assume that our children have faith, rather than exhort them to faith? Paedocommunion creates an escapeāat least for someāfrom the fear that our children may not be Israel. It gives us a way to keep the clan together. It lets us grow up and grow old together. As long as little Johnny is taking the Lordās table with me, I have peace in my heart concerning his spiritual condition, etc.
The Lordās table is where the church has been given practical authority to recognize the profession of a particular individual. At the Lordās table, part of what weāre doing as we ādiscern the body,ā is that weāre recognizing that there are some among us who ought eat (and whom we ought eat with), and some among us who ought not eat (and with whom we ought not eat). Discernment entails the making of division. Not a presumptuous division which welcomes everyone openly, and not a self-righteous, stingy division that turns away all but the frozen chosen. The dividing line is Christ. Is he my Savior? Is he our Lord?
Eating and drinking are deeply personal things, inherently. We eat corporately, but we eat individually. The need for personal and individual faith on the part of the partaker is implied in the sacrament (or ordinance) itself.
Paedocommunion torpedoes this discerning business completely, and it does so on the basis of a particular kind of postmillennial Christendom ideal.
Amen.
Thank you, brother.
2 Likes
Dear Joseph, Iām not sure how my writing here stating my opposition to the intense promotion of postmillennialism alongside the intense promotion of paedocommunionism makes it difficult for you to oppose paedocommunion. On the other hand, I can see how you would wish that someone you are associated with would not promote both postmillennialism and paedocommunion so intensely and publicly as the Moscow men have done for years. Iām afraid their doing so very much muddies the waters for you.
Sorry my convictions disappoint you, but thatās what it means to be in a presbytery. Love,
I think weād be foolish to distance paedocommunion (pc) from theonomic postmillennialism (tp), because Uri and his CREC say it canāt or shouldnāt be done. Then, logically, tp and pc both have as their goal the imposition of Christianity on those who do not have faithātp through revolutionary statecraft and pc through participation at the Table. Weāve seen for a few decades that where tp bubbles up, pc follows. They logically and theologically coinhere.
I donāt believe all postmillennialism is inevitably paedocommunionist, but I would argue the theonomic postmillennials have a system that disallows any objection to paedocommunion.
7 Likes
No. They are sacramentalists. Full stop. Read Rayburn. Read Leithart. Read their Lordās table liturgies. As I warned Doug twenty years ago, they will be Sacramentalists. Must I apologize for being prescient? Love
3 Likes
Dear brothers,
I stand with you in opposing paedocommunion. I firmly believe in the necessity of regeneration in the lives of my children and that it is generally Godās will to save the children of the faithful. God remains sovereign in this, and I am committed to praying for my children and consistently teaching them the gospel.
However, my concern lies in linking postmillennialism and paedocommunion together. Uri Burrito attempted this, also blending in presuppositional apologetics, which confuses the issue. We shouldnāt allow him to obscure the conversation.
Two of these three positions are held by many who donāt practice paedocommunion or sacramentalism. Adding discussions about the frequency of the Lordās Supper only further complicates things.
We should stay focused on the core issue: the Scriptures teach that the Lordās Supper is done in remembrance of Christ and that a man must examine himself. We must emphasize the importance of discipline, which is often neglected in paedocommunion practices.
Postmillennialism and presuppositionalism are distractions. If we attack these positions, we risk pushing those who hold them into the paedocommunion camp. Strawmanning positions, as Andrew did above (postmill doesnāt believe that we can force people to be Christian), harms our credibility on the main issue. If people see us misrepresenting one position, theyāll doubt our ability to handle the others correctly.
I trust you men and am loyal to you. But we receive men in our churches who donāt yet trust Evangel. Iām working to gain their trust, not just for myself, but also for the Presbytery. But your strategy here I think undermines that.
Your convictions donāt disappoint me Pastor Tim.
Love,
Joseph
2 Likes
Joseph,
Am I wrong to see organic connections between paedocommunion, recon postmillennialism, presumptive regeneration, federal vision, and, now, Christian nationalism? It all oozes Leithartās objectivity applied to the family, church, and state.
Please note what I said about postmillennialism. It is possible to make a distinction between good and bad postmillennialists. Good ones understand the power to be of the Holy Spirit and the means to be regeneration and revival. Bad ones understand the power to be through political revolution.
There are good and bad amillennialists, too. I donāt think I need to hash that out for you.
Love,
Andrew
You wrote:
Joshua longed for a heavenly kingdom and yet still led the conquest of the promised land. It was Godās will to give him both.
Yeah ā¦ but if you look at Israelās history in the period following Joshua, it was not so much that the people of Israel took over Canaan. It looks much more like that Canaan took over them. It was really only in and after the Babylonian Exile that the Jews began to āget it rightā, especially in regards to idolatry.
I can understand the appeal of post-millenialism, but: the various attempts to establish āGodās Kingdomā in a political sense, donāt give me any confidence that we could do any better. As CS Lewis said, if in a slightly different context, āmere improvement is not redemptionā.
1 Like
deleated by author to be replaced below
Let me add that Iām not opposed to postmillennials. What Iām opposed to is dividing over eschatology. Donāt mind arguing over it, but when theonomists accuse those who are amillennial or premillennial of lacking faith or courage; of being escapist etc.; Iām disgusted.
What Iāve noticed over decades is that Moscowās brand of postmillennialists always show up when political belligerence is whatās on the menu, while never seeing them eager for the work inside the church; the pulpit and reform. They condemn the church, as they did in the Covid days. But having issued their condemnations, they turn back to building their brand and the number of their disciples. āMove to Moscow. Weāre right and youāll be happy. Forget your church. Weāre the heroes you always knew you needed.ā
At this point, I had listed all the battles where I felt their absence, but fuggedaboutit. Love,
1 Like
Moscow Mud = Moscow Project = Moscow Monastic Movement ?
Though he does not link his postmillennialism to paedocommunion, he ranks it as the highest of anything other than saving (evangelical) doctrine.
A letter to Doug Wilson today:
In your About page, you say, āIn theology I am an evangelical, postmill, Calvinist, Reformed, and Presbyterian, pretty much in that order.ā Iām curious why you would put āpostmillā so high on the list. Since the clearer parts of Scripture are to aid us in interpreting the less clear parts, would it not be better to let oneās eschatology be informed by oneās Calvinist/Reformed leanings, rather than the other way around? Or am I just misinterpreting your āin that orderā statement?
Cap
Dougās response:
Cap, no, that ranking pretty much sums it up. I would say that without the postmill component, the Calvinism has too many verses against it. When it comes to the universality of the atonement, the Arminians have a lot of verses. Something persuasive and not contrived has to be done with them. Without postmill, I would have to be some sort of four-pointer.
4 Likes
Mind boggling. Utterly. Doug is superior to everyone whoās gone before him in solving all the problems they couldnāt see b/c they arenāt as bright and honest as he is. Which is why I never ever read Doug. Until you post this here, and thanks a lot! Love,
9 Likes
CREC Catechism
Q. What is your only comfort in life and death?
A. That postmil is true.
7 Likes
As a postmillennialist, I completely agree with this.
10 Likes
PS to what I wrote above, yesterday:
I donāt like what I said above, but sadly, not because itās wrong. Submission to authority is of a fabric so that one tear destroys whole cloth. Doug and his men belligerating against their civil authorities and splitting churches over masks during Covid is of a fabric with their not taking exceptions to the supposed āconfessional standardsā on paedocommunion and all the F-V slough of despond and their mongrel congregational-episcopal-presbyterian polity and their no-fencing-the-table weekly sacrament and on it goes. To them, there is no doctrinal or ecclesiastical authority to submit to because everyoneās wrong but them. Even when they appointed a committee of their CREC to examine their actions with regard to a serious child abuse case, they refused to submit to that committeeās report and recommendations. (I know this personally, firsthand, and warned them not to do so.) But despite having chosen to submit to their CREC men on this investigatory committee, they went on to reject the committeeās work.
I write this up for two reasons. First, nowhere is submission to authority more important than within Christās Church, and this is both practical and doctrinal, and this is from the Day of Pentecost till now. The Reformation is the exception that proves the rule. Moscow has five centuries of recovery of Patristic and Apostolic and Early Church Fathers teaching Scripture. Read Calvinās Institutes, not forgetting that one of this three most frequently quoted fathers is Bernard! But then, we read that unless weāre postmillennial, Arminians have the Bible on their side.
Moscow refuses to submit to any doctrinal authority, and if F-V didnāt teach you this, everything weāve watched since then ought to. Any man who chooses Moscow doctrine and exegesis over Calvinās doctrine and exegesis shows himself deluded by his own pride, and deserves his doctrinal and exegetical decrepitude.
The second reason is that we and our sheep and fellow shepherds need to be done with Moscow. It grieves me how we spread their blather more eagerly than we spread our warning of the souls under us against their blather. Because some of their stuff is good, principally on sexuality, is no reason for us to introduce our sheep to the poisonous spirit and pride and belligerance and political/eschatological hankerings and sacramentalist schism that overwhelms the good stuff.
So men, be wise as serpents with Moscow. I was wrong about them most of my life and wish I had it to do over again. I will not align myself or encourage those Iāve pastored most of my life to feed from their writings, books, podcasts, or conferences. I should have seen this three decades ago, back when I first began to warn them personally about Doug Jones, Peter Leithart, James Jordan, Tim Keller, Lig Duncan, and the list goes on. Never listened to. Love,
6 Likes