# LCMS rejects Pre/Post-Mil?



## Hamalas (Dec 10, 2015)

The recent thread on Lutheran Systematics got me doing some reading on the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (which is actually the church my wife grew up in!) It seems from what I was reading from the famed _Brief Statement_ of 1932 that the LCMS is decidedly amillennial and doesn't see the pre/post/amil question as one that is open to debate. Anyone know if this is common in Lutheranism historically? I'd love to learn where this comes from and how far back it goes. Here's the text: http://clclutheran.org/library/BriefStatement.html#millennium


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 10, 2015)

Ben, as a denomination that sees itself in solidarity with mainstream (NOT mainline) Christianity over the last two millennia, the LCMS is virtually universally certain of the amil position, seeing the pre-trib view as a novelty associated with the rise of 19th century emergent dispensationalism. Despite the early popularity of historic premillennialism in the church, they would argue that the view gave way to mainstream amillennialism. Chiliasm was condemned in Augsburg Confession XVII. With the rise of pietism (cf. Spener), there was an entry of millennial notions into Lutheranism. And, much American Lutheranism of the early 19th century was strongly pietistic.

See this video by Gregory Seltz of the LCMS Lutheran Hour Ministries: http://lhm.org/godconnects/topic.asp?id=24057. It speaks of the second coming in language reminiscent of Kim Riddlebarger: Jesus is coming to raise the dead, to judge the nations, and to make all things new (Seltz calls this "Eden 2.0").

Anti "chiliaism" is rooted in the magisterial reformation generally. Although it was not the main point regarding disagreements with the radical reformers, the movement associated with the Anabaptists held notions about the "kingdom of God" that seemed to resurrect millennial notions. Luther and his successors opposed these views strongly.

The most famous dogmatician in LCMS circles was F. Pieper. His three volume opus was summarized by J.T. Mueller (much in the way that Berkhof did with Bavinck), who wrote:



> All chiliasts, or millenarians, who teach the establishment by Christ of a dominion which is neither a Kingdom of Grace nor a Kingdom of Glory, but a caricature of both, namely, a reign of thousand years in duration, which will either precede or follow His second advent (premillenarians; postmillenarians). We reject the figment of millennialism, because, contrary to Scripture, it a) changes Christ’s spiritual kingdom into a visible, or earthly, kingdom and b) directs the hope of all Christians, not to the perfect glory of heaven, 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:20, 21; John 17:24, but to a future earthly glory, which Scripture clearly repudiates, Matt. 24:1–42.
> 
> John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, electronic ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 318.



Remember that the LCMS formed out of an effort to avoid union with Reformed churches (cf. the Prussian Union of 1817). 700 or so folks from Saxony came to America, settling in Missouri in 1839 and forming the LCMS (first called _ Die Deutsche Evangelisch-Lutherische Synode von Missouri, Ohio und andern Staaten _) in 1847 on an anti-unionist platform. That is also the reason, by the way, why the LCMS practices closed communion, even with ELCA and other non-confessional Lutheran bodies, and forbids its preachers to participate in eccumenical worship services to this day. The fact that there were some unionistic pietists who accepted millennial views functioned among LCMS thinkers in an analogous way to Luther's and Calvin's opposition to it due to the openness to it by some Anabaptists in their day. The fact that some of their enemies held to millennial views seemed a sufficient reason for Luther and Calvin to reject it; the same would be true of the LCMS. So, it would be fair to say that while some Lutherans have held to pre or post millennial views, it would also be true that the LCMS did not widely join in such speculations.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 10, 2015)

As a practical matter, I do not believe that a pastor could be ordained in the LCMS if he held to a view other than amillennialism. LCMS pastors must pledge quia subscription rather than quatenus subscription to the Book of Concord. Since AC XVII condemns non amil positions, it would be counter confessional for a LCMS man to hold any other position.*

* Unlike some Reformed bodies that permit "exceptions" to the Westminster Standards by ordinands and clergy, the LCMS brooks NO exceptions (quia subscription - "because" it is a faithful summary of the Bible, not "quatenus" subscription - "in so far as" it is a faithful summary of the Bible),

One of the founders of the LCMS and its first President, C.F.W. Walther famously observed that anything but full "quia" subscription to one's confessions represents an intellectual slight of hand. Even a Muslim, he observed 150 years ago(!!!) could say that he accepted the Bible "in so far as" it agreed with the Koran.

Walther refused to accept such marginalization, arguing for full quia subscription. He delineated seven types of equivocations and reservations popular in his own day. Conditional formula, such as were common among the Pietists and the Rationalists, typically speak of accepting the confessional standards insofar as (quatenus) they correspond to the teachings of the Bible. Secondly, in his day, members of the General Synod (American Lutheran) confessing the Augsburg Confession to be “substantially correct” in its conformity to Scripture. Third, Walther saw that when Reformed theologians professed a willingness to become signatories to the Augsburg Confession, they did so with a different kind of caveat. They declared themselves willing to subscribe as long as they would be “permitted to interpret it according to Scripture.” This is the reason why many LCMS churches put in their constitutions and even engrave on their foundation stones of their church buildings the initials UAC for "unaltered Augsburg Confession." This refers to the original form presented to the Emperor on June 25, 1529, not the 1540 one modified enough so that even Calvin could sign it. A fourth evasion involves differentiating the confessional from the non-confessional areas of the Book of Concord. This resembles the famous differentiation Daniel P. Fuller made between the salvific and the non-salvific parts of the Bible, which he dubbed a “slight corrective” to Warfield. By this, Fuller meant that we ought to separate the revelational from the non-revelational aspects of the Bible. Verbal plenary inspiration applies to the former rather than the latter. A fifth type of conditional subscription allows for the embrace of both the Reformed and Lutheran Confessions wherever they agree with each other. The sixth form treats as “open questions” those affirmations in the confessions about which some controversy has arisen. Finally, Rationalists are inclined to pledge themselves to the spirit rather than to the letter of the Symbolical Books.


----------



## Justified (Dec 10, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> As a practical matter, I do not believe that a pastor could be ordained in the LCMS if he held to a view other than amillennialism. LCMS pastors most pledge quia subscription rather than quatenus subscription to the Book of Concord. Since AC XVII condemns non amil positions, it would be counter confessional for a LCMS man to hold any other position.*
> 
> * Unlike some Reformed bodies that permit "exceptions" to the Westminster Standards by ordinands and clergy, the LCMS brooks NO exceptions (quia subscription - "because" it is a faithful summary of the Bible, not "quatenus" subscription - "in so far as" it is a faithful summary of the Bible),
> 
> ...


If only Reformed churches would follow suit, and again return to quia subscription. Quatenus subscription, especially in its weaker forms, leads to doctrinal degeneration.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 11, 2015)

If memory serves, isn't J.W. Montgomery historic premil? 

Lutheranism is very Augustinian, so I would be surprised at anything other than amillennialism.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 11, 2015)

Jacob, you raise a valid point. I do not know Montgomery's eschatology. My comment should have been more carefully nuanced to say that insofar as the topic came up, it would be highly unlikely that a person could be ordained while holding anything other than an amil view. However, that does not mean that it would "come up" in conversation. And, with his 11 earned degrees in various disciplines, he has always been something of a wild card. I know that one of his protege stars, Rod Rosenbladt (of White Horse Inn fame), came to the LCMS from one of the more liberal precursors to ELCA noted for its pietism and rationalism. It would be possible for a person to transfer into the LCMS and not tow the line on all points I suppose.

However, whether at the seminaries or in the pulpit, never heard of an LCMS man with anything but an amil eschatology. And, since they are SUPPOSED to be quia subscriptionists and AC XVII CONDEMNS chiliasm as "Jewish speculations," it would represent (at the least) an individual failure to accept what they PROMISED to believe.


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 11, 2015)

Since we're discussing Lutheranism, I'd be curious to get your thoughts Pastor McFadden on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q40qhwu9Vg


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 11, 2015)

Ben,

This is a pretty accurate treatment of the history in the past, but not the more recent events. For instance, he cites the acceptance of Boy Scouts as an example of LCMS "unionism" and yet this week the LCMS broke with the BSA for theological and biblical reasons (i.e., the position on homosexuality). And, this last week it came out that WELS and LCMS have been having discussions over a return to full fellowship. Do I predict that it will happen anytime soon? No. But, your question comes at an ironic time to be making the points Sullivan does since both of his examples have gone in the opposite direction since he made the video. When Sullivan graduated from seminary, the head of the LCMS was a fellow enamored of the church growth movement who sought to position the synod more in keeping with broader evangelicalism. The pastor who has headed it up for the past several years is more of a theologian (he translates doctrinal tomes out of the German for a hobby) with a near obsession with doctrinal fidelity (e.g., he has boldly testified before the U.S. Congress in defense of the traditional view of marriage and against abortion for biblical reasons, etc.).

Pastor Sullivan went to the "more open" seminary in the LCMS (St. Louis). As a resident of Fort Wayne where the other seminary is located, Concordia Fort Wayne can be accused of a LOT of things, being indifferent to doctrine is NOT one of them. And, this concern for doctrinal purity also translates to their biblical studies. For instance, they are so opposed to the conclusions of higher criticism that the entire NT faculty reportedly holds to Matthean (not Marcan) priority! This would put them to the "right" of many/most conservative Reformed scholars.

Please note: this is a REFORMED forum and my comments are intended to supply information of a factual and historical nature in response to specific questions where my expertise may be helpful, NOT to argue with or to dispute the confessional standards of the PB in any way. I still consider the Westminster Standards to be the most majestic and magnificent set of theological statements ever attempted since the days of the ecumenical creeds.


----------



## yeutter (Dec 12, 2015)

All four of the larger conservative confessional Lutheran denominations [the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of the Lutheran Confession] are Amill. The only conservative Lutheran body that I know of that is historic pre-millenial is the pietist Church of the Lutheran Brethren. 
Their position www.clba.org/product/teaching-about-the-last-things


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 12, 2015)

There have been a few outstanding Lutheran premillennial scholars on both sides of the Atlantic. Perhaps foremost among them was George N.H. Peters. As one would expect, he was subject to severe criticism in his day from his fellow Lutherans. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 12, 2015)

yeutter said:


> All four of the larger conservative confessional Lutheran denominations [the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of the Lutheran Confession] are Amill. The only conservative Lutheran body that I know of that is historic pre-millenial is the pietist Church of the Lutheran Brethren.
> Their position www.clba.org/product/teaching-about-the-last-things



That makes sense. Premillennial views were most likely to be present among the pietist precincts. The more confessional ones tend to defer to AC XVII. Of course, non-confessional Lutherans (e.g., ELCA) opt for "constructive" theology and do not feel constrained by either Scripture or tradition in their embrace of all things contemporary.


----------

