# Reformed Baptist millennial view?



## thistle93 (May 13, 2010)

Hi! What is the historical Reformed Baptist millennial view? 

• Amillennialism• Postmillennialism• Premillenialism

• Preterism• Idealism• Historicism• Futurism

Thank you!

For His Glory-
matthew wilson


----------



## VictorBravo (May 13, 2010)

All of the above. We are no more unified on the subject than most Presbyterians.

I tend to be a pessimistic postmil  (as in the view presented by Iain Murray in _The Puritan Hope_ with an over-the-shoulder casual dread that maybe the millennium is already over), my pastor is an unmovable amil. I know several who are historic premil. Of course, those are all current views, but I don't think there was any consistent view historically. We didn't even use the term "Reformed Baptist" until fairly recently. And everyone claims Spurgeon as holding to whatever view they have.


----------



## rbcbob (May 13, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> *All of the above. We are no more unified on the subject than most Presbyterians.*
> 
> I tend to be a pessimistic postmil  (as in the view presented by Iain Murray in _The Puritan Hope_ with an over-the-shoulder casual dread that maybe the millennium is already over), my pastor is an unmovable amil. I know several who are historic premil. Of course, those are all current views, but I don't think there was any consistent view historically. We didn't even use the term "Reformed Baptist" until fairly recently. And everyone claims Spurgeon as holding to whatever view they have.




Agreed on the diversity among RB's. The handful of churches that I personally know are Amil.


----------



## Damon Rambo (May 13, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> All of the above. We are no more unified on the subject than most Presbyterians.
> 
> I tend to be a pessimistic postmil  (as in the view presented by Iain Murray in _The Puritan Hope_ with an over-the-shoulder casual dread that maybe the millennium is already over), my pastor is an unmovable amil. I know several who are historic premil. Of course, those are all current views, but I don't think there was any consistent view historically. We didn't even use the term "Reformed Baptist" until fairly recently. And everyone claims Spurgeon as holding to whatever view they have.


 
Spurgeon was a historic pre-mill...and so am I.

Seriously, how can anyone say that Spurgeon was anything but? Spurgeon states his view very plainly; that he is premillennial.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 13, 2010)

Well, Iain Murray surveyed his work and thinks his position changed over time. Masters (a later pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle) advocated that he was amil. Some sermons seem to reject postmil outright, except his earlier sermons seem to assume it. People can argue about who is right, but the plain fact is that people of all persuasions have claimed him. Whether they are right or wrong is beside the point I was trying to make.

I think the best explanation is that Spurgeon did not see the need to emphasize eschatology (although he was strongly against the Plymouth Brethern position that was gaining popularity) at the expense of other, more pressing demands upon his ministry, such as the Downgrade Controversy and simply preaching the gospel.

But Spurgeon's views on eschatology are beyond the scope of this thread.


----------



## Scott1 (May 13, 2010)

I've come to understand that the Westminster Standards assume what is now called "amillennialism"- it was really "the only game in town" when the reformers considered implicit doctrine about this subject. Postmillennialism is really a form of that, and could be accommodated within the same framework. Historic premillennialism would likely require difference with the Standards at a couple of points due to the separation between return and judgment, but could still be accommodated within the framework (I'm not sure on this, only my thinking at this time).

Modern dispensational premillennialism was not even on the radar screen when the Confession was drafted since it is a product of dispensationalism, and therefore, basically, it is not compatible with it.

Looking at the London Baptist Confession now, it looks very similar regarding the Judgment and Second Coming, almost identical on those chapters at the end (Chapters XXX and XXXI).

Would that same analysis (as Westminster above) apply to those who hold the London Baptist Confession?

If not, why not?


----------



## Bern (May 13, 2010)

Amillenialism is the traditional Reformed position. People adhering to the 1689 LBC would accept that. Obviously since eschatology is a flexible position to a degree, not all reformed baptists would be amillennial though.


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 13, 2010)

There are a wide range of views among 'reformed' Baptists today. All english RBs I know are amil. American RBs I know are about 50/50 historic premil vs amil.

As to Spurgeon, if you read Peter Masters' review of his lifetime of sermon references to the second coming, he does not claim him as amil, but notes that his theology seems to change throughout his life, by the end of which he is 'closer' to amil than premil, with one or two particular oddities. The fascinating work PM did was published in the Sword and Trowel in the 1980s. Probably not available anywhere. One of the many things I have asked that they might republish.

I'm not sure about CHS. I still tend to think he was premil (certainly NOT postmil as Iain Murray tries to make out) but he surely was somewhat contradictory when his lifetime's sermons are analysed alongside one another.


----------

