I echo the comments of John Muether. No argument so far on recovering ecclesial Calvinism. With Darryl and John, I am a “high church Presbyterian.”
A comment about eschatology.
Unlike belief statements at most independent and dispensational churches, the Reformed have been pretty generous about difference of eschatology. The chapters of the Reformed and Prebyterian confessions affirm essentials but leave a great deal to work itself out.
Still, I cannot help but think how ironic it is that Douglas Wilson suggests the postmillenialism is a less gnostic approach to the eschatological question. It was concern about gnostic tendencies that drove me from rabid postmillenialism to a more “catholic” Augustinian amillenialism.
The implications of Eric Voegelin’s New Science of Politics (I hate to step on Caleb’s turf, but) sent me scrambling for ground untained by the three age speculations of medieval gnostic Joachim of Flora or secular three agers like Robespiere and Marx.
History does seem to suggest that Puritan postmillenialism flows nicely into New England liberalism, no?
At any rate, does the Federal Vision really want to draw a sectarian line in the eschatological sand? I thought you guys were about “c”atholicity. Why rub our noses in eschatology? Remember, I comment from the perspective of one who cares deeply about Christendom and its future.
The reason I would argue that postmillennialism is a “more embodied” eschatology is that the kingdom gets a lot more bodies into it. But I do agree completely that we don’t want to make a sectarian point out of this or any eschatology. One wit defined the millennium as a thousand years of peace that Christians like to fight about.
So can we safely take eschatology of the FV controversy table?
I trashed my own rule about outside references when I pointed to Voegelin. I repent for the rule violation (but not my amillenialism).