The Trinity and Postmillenialism

Clark, Stellman, and Mattes have all started their reviews of the FV document, and they are already ahead of me. I don’t have a whole lot to add to their points, actually.

On the Trinity, I would fervently agree that we must approach all the loci of theology allowing the doctrine of the Trinity to inform it. We interpret the Bible in a Trinitarian fashion. With regard to the Trinity’s relationship to covenant, I am listening, but one single sentence is not enough to give me a context here. There are excellent articles in CJPM and in BFA that ground the covenant of works and the covenant of grace in the pactum salutis. Since the pactum salutis is most definitely an inner-Trinitarian covenant, I could agree with the statement if that is where they are going with it. However, I suspect that it is in the direction of Ralph Smith’s book that they are going. If that is the case, then Clark’s points are to the point here.

On postmillenialism, all (or almost all) Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have declared that postmillenialism falls within the bounds of orthodoxy. Hey, my father is postmillenial (and definitely against the FV). They can hold a post-mil position, and I care not one iota, except that I think that amil is more faithful to the Scriptural record. But eschatology proper is not something by which I am going to define orthodoxy. I might also point out that it is quite possible to be an amil and still believe that the knowledge of Jesus Christ will fill the earth as the waters cover the seas. I do believe that. And I don’t even necessarily believe that it is referring to the time-period after Christ comes back. I just don’t believe that there is going to be a golden age before Christ comes back. There will be lots more Christians and lots more persecution before Christ comes back. That is my opinion, and that is how I read the texts. But I do not define orthodoxy by this standard.