# Princeton and the Millennium



## AV1611 (Jul 14, 2007)

> "It can be stated without fear of contradiction that the postmil position was the historic position of Princeton Theological Seminary."[1] Thus in the words of one loyal and devoted child of the Princeton tradition, J. Marcellus Kik, there is absolutely no doubt that the Princeton tradition is exclusively postmillennial in its eschatological understanding. There are more cautious assessments, however. Richard Gaffin of Westminster Theological Seminary, for one, argues that B. B. Warfield, one of a triad of Princeton theological giants, (Charles Hodge and son Archibald Alexander Hodge being the other two), cannot be so easily classified in this category[2]. The reason for this dissenting opinion, Gaffin points out, is the complex problem associated with eschatological nomenclature as it developed in America from the middle of the nineteenth century until as late the 1940's[3]. It is this difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of Princeton's overall eschatological position and the development of eschatological terminology during this period that this study seeks to evaluate. The procedure that I will follow here will be to first explore the problems associated with the term "postmillennial" as it is used in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century America, and then to set out the individual eschatological positions of the major Old Princeton theologians, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, against the backdrop of this development.



Continues here.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 14, 2007)

Warfield was amillennial in his exegesis of Revelation 20; he was rabidly postmillennial concerning the *nature* of the millennium.


----------

