# Premillennialism and the Westminster Confession of Faith



## Baptist-1689er

Is premillennialism at variance with the teaching of the WCF? (I am not referring to dispensationalism, but historic premillennialism).


----------



## Scott1

I'm not expert in the eschatological views.

It seems in the PCA one can be postmillenial, amillennial, or classical premillenialist (not modern dispensational premillennial) and subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

As you may be aware, amillennial is the majority, postmill a strong minority, and classical premillennial a very small minority. Some also combine attributes of amill and postmill and term themselves something like Mr. GI Williamson, "optimistic amillenialist" or "non-utopian postmillenialist."


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Scott1 said:


> I'm not expert in the eschatological views.
> 
> It seems in the PCA one can be postmillenial, amillennial, or classical premillenialist (not modern dispensational premillennial) and subscribe to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> As you may be aware, amillennial is the majority, postmill a strong minority, and classical premillennial a very small minority. Some also combine attributes of amill and postmill and term themselves something like Mr. GI Williamson, "optimistic amillenialist" or "non-utopian postmillenialist."



So, within the PCA, while it may be the least popular, it is held to be a position consistent with the WFC. Is that right?


----------



## Kevin

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)


----------



## Herald

Kevin said:


> Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.



Please be careful with the heresy label. Not every error is heresy. Heresy is a powerful word. A person who espouses heresy is a heretic, and a heretic is not a Christian.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Kevin said:


> Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.
> 
> I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)



On what basis would most within the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?


----------



## Spinningplates2

Herald said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please be careful with the heresy label. Not every error is heresy. Heresy is a powerful word. A person who espouses heresy is a heretic, and a heretic is not a Christian.
Click to expand...


I agree, I think to be fair it is usually called error. But it is so full of error that I can see how some might consider has so much wrong with it it has to be heretical.

-----Added 8/23/2009 at 11:22:04 EST-----



Baptist-1689er said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.
> 
> I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis would most wihin the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?
Click to expand...


There is a rumor that the only Historic Premillennialist PCA simply claim that because they have to have some sort of Premil belief to teach at TEDS (Trinty). Just kidding, but not really.


----------



## Edward

I had one conservative PCA pastor tell me that historic Pre Mil should be taken as an exception to the Confession, although it was one which was widely allowed in the PCA. (I'm Amil, and we were discussing a not so hypothetical 'hypothetical'.)


----------



## tcalbrecht

Baptist-1689er said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.
> 
> I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis would most wihin the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?
Click to expand...


From the WLC:



> Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?
> 
> A. *We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust:* when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor by him, as an offended judge.
> 
> Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?
> 
> A. *Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men;* the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.



There is no allowance in the Westminster Standards for a premil 1000 year period of time between the resurrection and the judgment.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

tcalbrecht said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.
> 
> I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis would most wihin the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the WLC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?
> 
> A. *We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust:* when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor by him, as an offended judge.
> 
> Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?
> 
> A. *Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men;* the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no allowance in the Westminster Standards for a premil 1000 year period of time between the resurrection and the judgment.
Click to expand...



Thanks. I think the teaching of a General Resurrection and General Judgment do indeed create a huge issue for Premillennialsim. So how could it be that at the Westminster Assembly there were a number of Premillennialists. It is my understanding that the prolucator of the assembly, William Twisse, was premillenarian, as were most, if not all, of the Congregationalists.


----------



## bookslover

I think, if I remember rightly, that the Westminster Standards do not take any official position regarding the three main millennial views, but that at least one of the three documents (I forget which one) takes a slightly postmil view of eschatology.

And, yes, William Twisse, the prolocutor (moderator) of the Westminster Assembly was historic premil.

Historic premil is one of the oldest millennial views the church has espoused. It is not an "error" (sorry Bill!) but merely one of the three eschatological views that the church has teased out of the Scriptures since the closing of the canon.

The reason many people think that the historic premil view is an error is because they get it confused with dispensationalism, which has, frankly, poisoned the well against the historic premil view since dispensationalism was invented in the early 19th century.

But, again, the historic premil view is a very old view and has always been of the three basic eschatological views.

And, one of these days, _we're gonna take over!_ (heh, heh)


----------



## AThornquist

Great point about historic premil being one of three main views and not what should be labeled an "error," Richard. Sure, it _might be_ an error but so is either amil or postmil. The fact that it is a minority view should not be reason for unfair consideration or labeling.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Edward said:


> I had one conservative PCA pastor tell me that historic Pre Mil should be taken as an exception to the Confession, although it was one which was widely allowed in the PCA. (I'm Amil, and we were discussing a not so hypothetical 'hypothetical'.)



So it would be reasonable to assume that someone like the late Dr. James M. Boice, who was not only premill, but also taught a pretrib rapture and could be justifiably labeled a dispensationalist, was required to take exceptions on these points at ordination?


----------



## Baptist-1689er

bookslover said:


> I think, if I remember rightly, that the Westminster Standards do not take any official position regarding the three main millennial views, but that at least one of the three documents (I forget which one) takes a slightly postmil view of eschatology.
> 
> And, yes, William Twisse, the prolocutor (moderator) of the Westminster Assembly was historic premil.
> 
> Historic premil is one of the oldest millennial views the church has espoused. It is not an "error" (sorry Bill!) but merely one of the three eschatological views that the church has teased out of the Scriptures since the closing of the canon.
> 
> The reason many people think that the historic premil view is an error is because they get it confused with dispensationalism, which has, frankly, poisoned the well against the historic premil view since dispensationalism was invented in the early 19th century.
> 
> But, again, the historic premil view is a very old view and has always been of the three basic eschatological views.
> 
> And, one of these days, _we're gonna take over!_ (heh, heh)



Have individuals asserted a commitment to Full Confessional Subscription and also Premillennialism? If so, then how would they harmonize the teaching of a General Resurrection/Judgment in the Confession with Premillennialism?


----------



## Kevin

Baptist-1689er said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.
> 
> I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis would most within the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?
Click to expand...


Sorry about the confussion. I meant this to be a reply to your second post & so I said "Yes". Most PCA people would consider HISTORIC pre-mil to be allowable.

In fact I have known (and served with) some that held to the Dispensational version.

Sorry that I was unclear.


----------



## Scott1

Baptist-1689er said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not expert in the eschatological views.
> 
> It seems in the PCA one can be postmillenial, amillennial, or classical premillenialist (not modern dispensational premillennial) and subscribe to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> As you may be aware, amillennial is the majority, postmill a strong minority, and classical premillennial a very small minority. Some also combine attributes of amill and postmill and term themselves something like Mr. GI Williamson, "optimistic amillenialist" or "non-utopian postmillenialist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, within the PCA, while it may be the least popular, it is held to be a position consistent with the WFC. Is that right?
Click to expand...


I think so, and some of the other posts here would confirm that.

Remember, that each presbytery determines the fitness (call, theology, morals) of a candidate and evaluates any exceptions that might be requested. It is possible that someone emphasizing a premillennial eschatology might not be approved in a particular presbytery, but I've not heard of that.

The Westminster Standards do not say much about eschatology generally, and particularly about millennialism. Mainly, they state:

1) all men will be raised
2) all men will be judged
3) Christ will return

The clear implication is a single resurrection, or as part of the same general event.

Any hint of dispensationalism would run into possible differences with the standards in other aspects, but I think one could be premillennial, classically.
Covenant theology is consistent, and reflected through the standards.

Wisely again, the Divines were careful as some aspects of millenialism were unclear from Scripture, so they were always conscious of not binding men's conscience from things that were not clear from Scripture.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Scott1 said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not expert in the eschatological views.
> 
> It seems in the PCA one can be postmillenial, amillennial, or classical premillenialist (not modern dispensational premillennial) and subscribe to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> As you may be aware, amillennial is the majority, postmill a strong minority, and classical premillennial a very small minority. Some also combine attributes of amill and postmill and term themselves something like Mr. GI Williamson, "optimistic amillenialist" or "non-utopian postmillenialist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, within the PCA, while it may be the least popular, it is held to be a position consistent with the WFC. Is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think so, and some of the other posts here would confirm that.
> 
> Remember, that each presbytery determines the fitness (call, theology, morals) of a candidate and evaluates any exceptions that might be requested. It is possible that someone emphasizing a premillennial eschatology might not be approved in a particular presbytery, but I've not heard of that.
> 
> The Westminster Standards do not say much about eschatology generally, and particularly about millennialism. Mainly, they state:
> 
> 1) all men will be raised
> 2) all men will be judged
> 3) Christ will return
> 
> The clear implication is a single resurrection, or as part of the same general event.
> 
> Any hint of dispensationalism would run into possible differences with the standards in other aspects, but I think one could be premillennial, classically.
> Covenant theology is consistent, and reflected through the standards.
> 
> Wisely again, the Divines were careful as some aspects of millenialism were unclear from Scripture, so they were always conscious of not binding men's conscience from things that were not clear from Scripture.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your input. I guess my question is "How would someone attempt to assert full subscription to the Confession and premillennialism concurrently?" I realize that the Confession doesn't speak directly to the millennial issue. I have heard some do so by saying that the Confession's eschatology is "minimalistic" and that the authors of the Confession were seeking to assert what must be confessed. The idea being that one could confess "much more," such as more than one resurrection/judgment and premillennialism. Has anyone heard of this type of approach before? If so is there anything in print which advocates this line of reasoning?


----------



## Scott1

> *Baptist-1689er*
> I appreciate your input. I guess my question is "How would someone attempt to assert full subscription to the Confession and premillennialism concurrently?" I realize that the Confession doesn't speak directly to the millennial issue. I have heard some do so by saying that the Confession's eschatology is "minimalistic" and that the authors of the Confession were seeking to assert what must be confessed. The idea being that one could confess "much more," such as more than one resurrection/judgment and premillennialism. Has anyone heard of this type of approach before? If so is there anything in print which advocates this line of reasoning?



Thank you.

In the PCA, a candidate is required to state and have evaluated by his presbytery any differences with any "statement or proposition" in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechism).

The Westminster Standards aren't intended to cover everything, while at the same time they represent a "system of doctrine."

I believe the convenor of the Westminster Divines, Jeremiah Burroughs leaned (classical) premillennial. Here's a citation, Dictionary of Premillennial Theology By Mal Couch that says Mr. Burroughs had a premillennial view:http://books.google.com/books?id=rP...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

What the Confession states is minimal- that does not mean what it does say about eschatology or millennialism is "minimal" to the system of doctrine, only that there is not a great deal of specificity about details of eschatology in the Confession because it is not clear enough to bind men's consciences or unity on those details.

My observation is someone who would want to emphasize (classical) premillennialism would not be a good fit in the system of doctrine and would either de-emphasize it, present the other views, or move toward the other views over time. Not sure that would happen, but it would seem to be the trajectory.

The PCA in particular self-consciously is not going to emphasize or divide over millennial views beyond Christ's return, a resurrection and judgment.


----------



## Archlute

I don't really think it matters whether or not there are some modern day slobbering and crazed postmillers, or erudite and easily offended amillers who would like to assert that you can not hold strictly to the confession and be historic premil. The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually _penned our confession_ who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries. 

I think that any advocate of confessional subscription who would come up with a reinterpretation of our confessions in such a manner that would have ended up excluding the very founders of that confession are heading down a foolish path.

I also think they need to read a little bit more in the arena of church history, and eschatology. Chuck Hill has written a great little work on the predominantly premillennial views of the early church entitled _Regnum Caelorum_. That would be a great place to start. It is an historical survey with some theological analysis involved, and a very good bit of even handed scholarship. If I remember rightly, he is not even premil himself.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Archlute said:


> I don't really think it matters whether or not there are some modern day slobbering and crazed postmillers, or erudite and easily offended amillers who would like to assert that you can not hold strictly to the confession and be historic premil. The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually _penned our confession_ who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.
> 
> I think that any advocate of confessional subscription who would come up with a reinterpretation of our confessions in such a manner that would have ended up excluding the very founders of that confession are heading down a foolish path.
> 
> I also think they need to read a little bit more in the arena of church history, and eschatology. Chuck Hill has written a great little work on the predominantly premillennial views of the early church entitled _Regnum Caelorum_. That would be a great place to start. It is an historical survey with some theological analysis involved, and a very good bit of even handed scholarship. If I remember rightly, he is not even premil himself.



Interesting!

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 04:49:42 EST-----[


----------



## Southern Twang

Archlute said:


> The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually _penned our confession_ who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.



Would you please give specific names?


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Southern Twang said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually _penned our confession_ who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please give specific names?
Click to expand...


William Twisse?


----------



## Jon Peters

Baptist-1689er said:


> So it would be reasonable to assume that someone like the late Dr. James M. Boice, who was not only premill, but also taught a pretrib rapture and could be justifiably labeled a dispensationalist, was required to take exceptions on these points at ordination?



Really? Granted I've never been much of a Boice guy (never read anything, only heard him on the radio a few times), but this is very interesting. I had no idea.


----------



## Prufrock

Baptist-1689er said:


> Southern Twang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually _penned our confession_ who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please give specific names?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> William Twisse?
Click to expand...


I would suggest that (at the very least) _caution_ must be used in this approach, i.e. finding members of the Assembly who held positions and affirming therefore the confessional acceptability thereof. For instance, it should be observed that Twisse (who died before the assembly finished its task) denied the imputation of the active obedience to the believer (though it should be noted that it is unclear how he would have felt about the Confession's wording of "perfect obedience"). We can use the divine's personal writings to _help_ us understand the confessional language, but we can't assume that just because someone signed the document, their writings therefore are in complete harmony with the the Confession.

Therefore, while I offer no suggestion as to the relationship between Historic Premillenialism and the WCF, we should not assume compatibility of any doctrine _solely_ upon the basis of private writings of members.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Jon Peters said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it would be reasonable to assume that someone like the late Dr. James M. Boice, who was not only premill, but also taught a pretrib rapture and could be justifiably labeled a dispensationalist, was required to take exceptions on these points at ordination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Granted I've never been much of a Boice guy (never read anything, only heard him on the radio a few times), but this is very interesting. I had no idea.
Click to expand...

 I greatly appreicated his ministry in the word. Please consider his book "The Last and Future World" (Zondervan :1974) or his commentary on the Minor Prophets.

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 05:29:56 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Twang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please give specific names?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Twisse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that (at the very least) _caution_ must be used in this approach, i.e. finding members of the Assembly who held positions and affirming therefore the confessional acceptability thereof. For instance, it should be observed that Twisse (who died before the assembly finished its task) denied the imputation of the active obedience to the believer (though it should be noted that it is unclear how he would have felt about the Confession's wording of "perfect obedience"). We can use the divine's personal writings to _help_ us understand the confessional language, but we can't assume that just because someone signed the document, their writings therefore are in complete harmony with the the Confession.
> 
> Therefore, while I offer no suggestion as to the relationship between Historic Premillenialism and the WCF, we should not assume compatibility of any doctrine _solely_ upon the basis of private writings of members.
Click to expand...


And Yet, What shall we do with all of those Congregationalists at the Assembly who were Premillennial?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

N.B. There is no record of any dissent that I could find on WLC 87-88. On occasion we know a divine believed the majority had just passed something he believed was untrue to the substance of it (i.e. not scriptural); e.g. one divine on one or two votes on Liberty of Conscience did this. Paul's point is an important one (Twisse was dead by the time the LC was drafted I think).



Prufrock said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Twang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please give specific names?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Twisse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that (at the very least) _caution_ must be used in this approach, i.e. finding members of the Assembly who held positions and affirming therefore the confessional acceptability thereof. For instance, it should be observed that Twisse (who died before the assembly finished its task) denied the imputation of the active obedience to the believer (though it should be noted that it is unclear how he would have felt about the Confession's wording of "perfect obedience"). We can use the divine's personal writings to _help_ us understand the confessional language, but we can't assume that just because someone signed the document, their writings therefore are in complete harmony with the the Confession.
> 
> Therefore, while I offer no suggestion as to the relationship between Historic Premillenialism and the WCF, we should not assume compatibility of any doctrine _solely_ upon the basis of private writings of members.
Click to expand...




tcalbrecht said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.
> 
> I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis would most wihin the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the WLC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?
> 
> A. *We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust:* when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor by him, as an offended judge.
> 
> Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?
> 
> A. *Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men;* the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no allowance in the Westminster Standards for a premil 1000 year period of time between the resurrection and the judgment.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott1

I think also it is fair to say the Divines had a strong sense of the God given collective wisdom of the assembly- though their individual views might have at times varied, they really understood God was guiding through their purposed assembly. What's amazing (providential) is how much in consonance their views were, and how those were revealed in the Assembly's work.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

NaphtaliPress said:


> N.B. There is no record of any dissent that I could find on WLC 87-88. On occasion we know a divine believed the majority had just passed something he believed was untrue to the substance of it (i.e. not scriptural); e.g. one divine on one or two votes on Liberty of Conscience did this. Paul's point is an important one (Twisse was dead by the time the LC was drafted I think).
> 
> 
> 
> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> William Twisse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that (at the very least) _caution_ must be used in this approach, i.e. finding members of the Assembly who held positions and affirming therefore the confessional acceptability thereof. For instance, it should be observed that Twisse (who died before the assembly finished its task) denied the imputation of the active obedience to the believer (though it should be noted that it is unclear how he would have felt about the Confession's wording of "perfect obedience"). We can use the divine's personal writings to _help_ us understand the confessional language, but we can't assume that just because someone signed the document, their writings therefore are in complete harmony with the the Confession.
> 
> Therefore, while I offer no suggestion as to the relationship between Historic Premillenialism and the WCF, we should not assume compatibility of any doctrine _solely_ upon the basis of private writings of members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the WLC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?
> 
> A. *We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust:* when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor by him, as an offended judge.
> 
> Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?
> 
> A. *Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men;* the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no allowance in the Westminster Standards for a premil 1000 year period of time between the resurrection and the judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Therefore, one should conclude that James M. Boice and Francis Schaeffer and all the Congreagationalists at the Assembly, and the majority of the members of the PCA who believe that Millennialism is consistent with the WFC are in Error on this subject?


----------



## Scott1

> Baptist-1689er
> Therefore, one should conclude that James M. Boice and Francis Schaeffer and all the Congreagationalists at the Assembly, and the majority of the members of the PCA who believe that Millennialism is consistent with the WFC are in Error on this subject?



Remember, amillennialism, for example does believe in a millennium- a realized one.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Scott1 said:


> Baptist-1689er
> Therefore, one should conclude that James M. Boice and Francis Schaeffer and all the Congreagationalists at the Assembly, and the majority of the members of the PCA who believe that Millennialism is consistent with the WFC are in Error on this subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, amillennialism, for example does believe in a millennium- a realized one.
Click to expand...


Of Course, that is not what we are talking about, is it?


----------



## MW

Robert Dabney, in the "Memorial Volume," p. 101:



> Last, we note the caution of the Assembly concerning the millennium. They were well aware of the movement of the early Millennarians, and of the persistence of their romantic and exciting speculations among several sects. Our divines find in the Scriptures the clearest assertions of Christ's second advent, and so they teach it most positively. They find Paul describing with equal clearness one resurrection of the saved and lost just before this glorious second advent and general judgment. So they refuse to sanction a pre-millennial advent. But what is the nature, and what the duration, of that millennial glory predicted in the Apocalypse? Here the Assembly will not dogmatize, because these unfulfilled prophecies are obscure to our feeble minds. It is too modest to dictate a belief amidst so many different opinions.


----------



## Scott1

No, except that many are confused on this point and their only understanding in following is that "a" mill doesn't believe in a millennium, which is not correct. Another term for amillennialism is realized millennium.

What you are really talking about, perhaps, is not whether there is a millennium but whether there is one general resurrection of the both the just and the unjust, as part of the same event. That's not exactly the same thing. (It took time to understand that was what was at issue)


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> Robert Dabney, in the "Memorial Volume," p. 101:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last, we note the caution of the Assembly concerning the millennium. They were well aware of the movement of the early Millennarians, and of the persistence of their romantic and exciting speculations among several sects. Our divines find in the Scriptures the clearest assertions of Christ's second advent, and so they teach it most positively. They find Paul describing with equal clearness one resurrection of the saved and lost just before this glorious second advent and general judgment. So they refuse to sanction a pre-millennial advent. But what is the nature, and what the duration, of that millennial glory predicted in the Apocalypse? Here the Assembly will not dogmatize, because these unfulfilled prophecies are obscure to our feeble minds. It is too modest to dictate a belief amidst so many different opinions.
Click to expand...


Amen! How we love our dear brother Dabney in the South! My only question is how do our Presbyterian Brothers in Christ explain the historical reality that:

1. The Congregationalists at the Assembly were Premil (as were a 
number of our beloved Puritans) and yet they were not seen as at 
variance with the Confession.

2. The Majority of our dear brothers within the PCA do not see Premil as 
at variance with the WCF.

3. Notable Servants of Christ within the PCA have held to Premil, 
and yet have not been considered at variance with the WCF.

My question is simple. How do folks who hold to Premil and the WCF present their case?


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> 1. The Congregationalists at the Assembly were Premil (as were a
> number of beloved our Puritans) and yet they were not seen as at
> variance with the Confession.



Three points worth considering. (1.) Chiliasm in the 17th century was not identical to premillennialism today. A "personal" coming of Christ to introduce the golden age might be spoken about in terms of "the breath of His mouth," that is, the preaching of the Word. So a chiliast might turn out to be postmillennialist in today's language. (2.) Chiliasm tended to be highly speculative; to the point that an interpreter might not even consider what ramifications a specific conclusion might have for his doctrinal system. We should not be quick to suppose consistency. (3.) There was no subscription to the Confession and Catechisms. Hence there is no reason why a divine could not be at variance with the Confession. He would only recognise it as the faith of the Church of England, not necessarily the confession of his faith.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Congregationalists at the Assembly were Premil (as were a
> number of beloved our Puritans) and yet they were not seen as at
> variance with the Confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three points worth considering. (1.) Chiliasm in the 17th century was not identical to premillennialism today. A "personal" coming of Christ to introduce the golden age might be spoken about in terms of "the breath of His mouth," that is, the preaching of the Word. So a chiliast might turn out to be postmillennialist in today's language. (2.) Chiliasm tended to be highly speculative; to the point that an interpreter might not even consider what ramifications a specific conclusion might have for his doctrinal system. We should not be quick to suppose consistency. (3.) There was no subscription to the Confession and Catechisms. Hence there is no reason why a divine could not be at variance with the Confession. He would only recognise it as the faith of the Church of England, not necessarily the confession of his faith.
Click to expand...


Therefore, dear esteemed brother, as to... 

1.) You are asserting that the alleged assumptions of history regarding the Premillennnailsim of the Congregationalists at the Assembly is in fact a misunderstanding of their views, and that they were, in point of fact, Postmillennial? 

2.) That the Premillennialism of the 16th Century tended toward what we might describe as "highly speculative", and therefore should be viewed as suspect?

3.) That the non-subscriptional nature of Assembly provided that one who held to Premil views was in fact simply inconsistent with the "faith of the church of England" at that point?


----------



## Turtle

Baptist-1689er said:


> ...
> 
> My question is simple. How do folks who hold to Premil and the WCF present their case?



Dabney's quote appears to be a polite way of romanticizing the allowance of speculative sects to preserve unity. 

Who could miss the invitation to avert being labeled a member of such a persistent sect that holds romantic and exciting speculations (and if one is unsure of what he meant, why risk finding out). One can simply follow the example of forgoing the topic. 

My.. (all together now) wasn't it a beautiful sunrise this morning! 

In seriousness, it is perhaps one of the most avoided topics in the PCA. I could count on one hand the number of times I have heard the topic preached (in the PCA) in the last twenty years. I have found other denominations that appear much more comfortable with preaching about it.


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> 1.) You are asserting that the alleged assumptions of history regarding the Premillennnailsim of the Congregationalists at the Assembly is in fact a misunderstanding of their views, and that they were, in point of fact, Postmillennial?



That may be an extension of what I am saying, and Charles Briggs' "Whither" certainly makes this claim with some historical plausibility.

Effectively what I am saying is that it is anachronistic to impose the modern classifications of pre and post on the chiliasm of the 17th century. The divines themselves were not functioning within these categories. They might resemble them in specific ways, but they never taught them as they have come to be known.



Baptist-1689er said:


> 2.) That the Premillennialism of the 16th Century tended toward what we might describe as "highly speculative", and therefore should be viewed as suspect?



No, simply that their speculations were still in the process of review, whereas we now stand on the other side of that process; so consistency should not be insisted upon as we might require it today.



Baptist-1689er said:


> 3.) That the non-subscriptional nature of Assembly provided that one who held to Premil views was in fact simply consistent with the "faith of the church of England" at that point?



First, I doubt there was a strict premil view. Secondly, as there was no personal subscription, individual views and the question of fidelity would not have come under scrutiny the way they are likely to do in a subscription setting.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Baptist-1689er said:


> Therefore, one should conclude that James M. Boice and Francis Schaeffer and all the Congreagationalists at the Assembly, and the majority of the members of the PCA who believe that Millennialism is consistent with the WFC are in Error on this subject?



They would at least be required, in my opinion, to explain how their personal views fit with the language of the Westminster Standards without the necessity of taking an exception.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) You are asserting that the alleged assumptions of history regarding the Premillennnailsim of the Congregationalists at the Assembly is in fact a misunderstanding of their views, and that they were, in point of fact, Postmillennial?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be an extension of what I am saying, and Charles Briggs' "Whither" certainly makes this claim with some historical plausibility.
> 
> Effectively what I am saying is that it is anachronistic to impose the modern classifications of pre and post on the chiliasm of the 17th century. The divines themselves were not functioning within these categories. They might resemble them in specific ways, but they never taught them as they have come to be known.
> 
> 
> 
> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.) That the Premillennialism of the 16th Century tended toward what we might describe as "highly speculative", and therefore should be viewed as suspect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, simply that their speculations were still in the process of review, whereas we now stand on the other side of that process; so consistency should not be insisted upon as we might require it today.
> 
> 
> 
> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3.) That the non-subscriptional nature of Assembly provided that one who held to Premil views was in fact simply consistent with the "faith of the church of England" at that point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I doubt there was a strict premil view. Secondly, as there was no personal subscription, individual views and the question of fidelity would not have come under scrutiny the way they are likely to do in a subscription setting.
Click to expand...


Dear brother... While I completely understand the inherent predicament it is that one might find premillennalists present and even moderating the Assembly, I find your attempts to explain away this commonly understood point of history less than compelling. And yet for the sake of charity, I will move on to the the main point of this thread. 

It seems that among a good many Presbyterian brethren there is a common agreement that one may hold to Historic Premil and still be considered in harmony with the WCF. 

Do you believe that is a correct assumption?


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> Dear brother... While I completely understand the inherent predicament it is that one might find premillennalists present and even moderating the Assembly, I find your attempts to explain away this commonly understood point of history less than compelling. And yet for the sake of charity, I will move on to the the main point of this thread.



I have recommended reading the history as history rather than ideology. If one decides not to take my recommendation then that is his choice. I believe my historical assessment is easily demonstrable from the fact that Robert Baillie calls a number of divines chiliasts who did not teach what has has come to be known as premillennialism.



Baptist-1689er said:


> It seems that among a good many Presbyterian brethren there is a common agreement that one may hold to Historic Premil and still be considered in harmony with the WFC.
> 
> Do you believe that is a correct assumption?



No; the quotation from Dabney shows what the Confession includes and excludes.


----------



## Edward

Baptist-1689er said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had one conservative PCA pastor tell me that historic Pre Mil should be taken as an exception to the Confession, although it was one which was widely allowed in the PCA. (I'm Amil, and we were discussing a not so hypothetical 'hypothetical'.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it would be reasonable to assume that someone like the late Dr. James M. Boice, who was not only premill, but also taught a pretrib rapture and could be justifiably labeled a dispensationalist, was required to take exceptions on these points at ordination?
Click to expand...


I don't know enough about Dr. Boice's views on the subject to point a finger in his direction on that subject. 

I do believe a case can be made that a PreMil should state that exception to the appropriate court. In the PCA, it likely wouldn't present any bar to ordination. I'd be happy if we could just keep the Dispensationalists out of office (who shouldn't be allowed an exception).


----------



## tcalbrecht

My 

In this century, premillennialism within Presbyterian bodies seems to be largely an American issue. I suspect that early 20th century alliances between American Presbyterian and like-minded dispensationalists (sometimes one and the same) against the forces of modernism are part of the reason for active premillennialism within some denominations (see Machen's Warrior Children). 

The PCA is an amalgam of several traditions, including the RPCES which was highly sympathetic to premillennialism, having roots in the Bible Presbyterian split of 1938. The BPC was sympathetic not just to historic premillennialism but also to dispensationalism. (Anecdotally speaking, I recall seeing a fair share of Scofield Bibles when I joined an RPCES congregation back in the mid-70s.)


----------



## Baptist-1689er

tcalbrecht said:


> My
> 
> In this century, premillennialism within Presbyterian bodies seems to be largely an American issue. I suspect that early 20th century alliances between American Presbyterian and like-minded dispensationalists (sometimes one and the same) against the forces of modernism are part of the reason for active premillennialism within some denominations (see Machen's Warrior Children).
> 
> The PCA is an amalgam of several traditions, including the RPCES which was highly sympathetic to premillennialism, having roots in the Bible Presbyterian split of 1938. The BPC was sympathetic not just to historic premillennialism but also to dispensationalism. (Anecdotally speaking, I recall seeing a fair share of Scofield Bibles when I joined an RPCES congregation back in the mid-70s.)




I appreciate this historical perspective. I have always found it interesting that one of the five founding professors of Westminster Theological Seminary, PA was a dispensational premillennialist.


----------



## bookslover

So, I think the basic point stands - that folks do not have to take an exception to the Westminster Standards if they are historic premil because the Standards do not take a clear, positive stance on the millennial issue, one way or another (a wise decision on the divines' part, I might add).

One of the wisest things the OPC did at its founding (1936) was to take Machen's advice that "we need to trust each other" on eschatalogical issues. This is why all three of the basic main views have been acceptable in the OPC from its beginning.

In the RCUS, on the other hand, you _cannot_ be a minister if you are historic premil (or postmil, or so I'm told). You may _only_ be amil in the RCUS.

If the RCUS is going to hold a definite position that historic premil is unbiblical, they're going to have to prove that from Scripture. I think they're a little _too_ confident about what Scriptures teach eschatalogically - especially in light of the fact that, since the closing of the canon, the church has teased these three basic positions from the same biblical material.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

bookslover said:


> So, I think the basic point stands - that folks do not have to take an exception to the Westminster Standards if they are historic premil because the Standards do not take a clear, positive stance on the millennial issue, one way or another (a wise decision on the divines' part, I might add).
> 
> One of the wisest things the OPC did at its founding (1936) was to take Machen's advice that "we need to trust each other" on eschatalogical issues. This is why all three of the basic main views have been acceptable in the OPC from its beginning.
> 
> In the RCUS, on the other hand, you _cannot_ be a minister if you are historic premil (or postmil, or so I'm told). You may _only_ be amil in the RCUS.
> 
> If the RCUS is going to hold a definite position that historic premil is unbiblical, they're going to have to prove that from Scripture. I think they're a little _too_ confident about what Scriptures teach eschatalogically - especially in light of the fact that, since the closing of the canon, the church has teased these three basic positions from the same biblical material.



Thank you for sharing your views on this subject. 

It seems that within confessional Presbyterianism, based on the opinions expressed here, the issue of whether Historic Premil is at variance with the WCF depends, practically speaking, on who you ask ( I thought that was more of a Baptist thing ). Some say yes, because of the General Resurrection/Judgment teaching of the Standards. Others see Historic Premil as consistent, pointing to the fact that the Confession is silent on the issue of the millennium. I appreciate all the input on this topic!


----------



## Scott1

I don't think we can overemphasize that the Westminster Standards aim to bind men's consciences, and form as a basis of unity and accountability, only those doctrines clear and convincing from Scripture, taking the whole of Scripture in the context of the whole of Scripture.

There is liberty beyond that, on specific doctrines of millennialism not because there is not a "right" position, because there is, and God knows it. But because it has not been evident enough to warrant the binding the consciences of His creatures, even as God has guided His Church.

For what's its worth, after having studied these millennial views for quite some time, and having been taught explicitly and by assumption modern dispensational premillennialism in the past, I can only indentify with this account of Dr. Sproul being asked about this:

A student at one of his conferences said he had read Dr. Sproul's book, _The Last Days according to Jesus_, and could not tell which millennial view the author held. The student asked, which is it- classical premill, premill, amill, or modern dispensational premill? 

Dr. Sproul is reported to have laughed and said, "That's because there are strengths and weaknesses with each one. Only one thing I am certain of- it's not the last one."

In this generation, as in others, when sin would affect men to prevaricate laws, standards and beliefs, the Divines sought not an individualist interpretation, but a summary of self evident truth that would bind unity, and further the peace and purity of God's people, covenanted together to serve Him in this world.

That's part of the "genius" of the Westminster Standards, and why we owe our forefathers in the faith such a debt of gratitude.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Scott1 said:


> I don't think we can overemphasize that the Westminster Standards aim to bind men's consciences, and form as a basis of unity and accountability, only those doctrines clear and convincing from Scripture, taking the whole of Scripture in the context of the whole of Scripture.
> 
> There is liberty beyond that, on specific doctrines of millennialism not because there is not a "right" position, because there is, and God knows it. But because it has not been evident enough to warrant the binding the consciences of His creatures, even as God has guided His Church.
> 
> For what's its worth, after having studied these millennial views for quite some time, and having been taught explicitly and by assumption modern dispensational premillennialism in the past, I can only indentify with this account of Dr. Sproul being asked about this:
> 
> A student at one of his conferences said he had read Dr. Sproul's book, _The End Times according to Jesus_, and could not tell which millennial view the author held. The student asked, which is it- classical premill, premill, amill, or modern dispensational premill?
> 
> Dr. Sproul is reported to have laughed and said, "That's because there are strengths and weaknesses with each one. Only one thing I am certain of- it's not the last one."
> 
> In this generation, as in others, when sin would affect men to prevaricate laws, standards and beliefs, the Divines sought not an individualist interpretation, by a summary of self evident truth that would bind unity, and further the peace and purity of God's people, covenanted together to serve Him in this world.
> 
> That's part of the "genius" of the Westminster Standards, and why we owe our forefathers in the faith such a debt of gratitude.



Amen!


----------



## tcalbrecht

Baptist-1689er said:


> Others see Historic Premil as consistent, pointing to the fact that the Confession is silent on the issue of the millennium.



The curious point is that premillenarians make much of the concept of the millennium including the idea of (at least) two physical resurrections (and two judgments??) separated by 1000 years. The Westminster Standards, by not specifically mentioning it yet at the same time indicating a general resurrection and general judgment, seems to indirectly undermine the premil position.

"At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever." (WCF 32:2)

It would be interesting to hear a premil Presbyterian minister actually preach on the subject, trying to reconcile his position with both Scripture and the Confession.


----------



## Peairtach

Sometimes Q. 191 of the WLC is mentioned as evidence of postmil tendencies:-

_Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances,purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends._

But I think that if the commissioners had wanted to make an issue of the millennial issue they'd have devoted a chapter and/or question to it.


----------



## Smith

Dear Pastor Linehan,
I would like to add some information that might be pertinent. There is another denomination of Presbyterians known as Bible Presbyterians. They have a seminary in Tacoma (WA), Western Reformed Seminary, which as a school takes a historical premill position. Bible Presbyterians as a denomination were historic/classic premill. In seminary I studied under Dr. Allan A. MacRae, who was one such outspoken historic premill--and Reformed--Presbyterian. These men certainly regarded and now regard their position as fully consistent with the WCF. I believe they would say the WCF does not address the question. (I tend to agree.)

Some 60 years ago a school split off from Westminster Seminary--Faith Theological Seminary. One issue in the division, I believe, was the millennial issue--FTS was historic premill and generally associated with the Bible Presbyterian church. The notion that historic premill might be in conflict with the WCF was not an issue.

I think it is important to distinguish the official declaration of the WCF as a church document from the personal views of the Westminster divines. They obviously could have inserted more specific statements on the subject. We should be careful not to read more into the text than it actually asserts. I would be curious to know exactly which statements in the WCF definitely rule out the historic premill view.

I will add that I am a Reformed Baptist who is historic premill. I personally have no doubt that my position is consistent with the LBCF. The Confession does not address the question. Yet, I acknowledge that the differences between premill and amill/postmill can involve broad contrasts in our future outlook and in our methods of Bible interpretation--affecting our exegesis and application of many passages. As a result, it can be difficult for premill'ers and amill'ers to work well together. It is a big enough issue that I have sometimes found it quite difficult to sit under amill teaching. But this is not a matter of Confessional subscription.

S.P. Smith


----------



## NaphtaliPress

FYI. The Bible Presbyterians changed their standards to be explicitly premil in 1938. The places in the Westminster standards have been adduced above.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

NaphtaliPress said:


> FYI. The Bible Presbyterians changed their standards to be explicitly premil in 1938. The places in the Westminster standards have been adduced above.


----------



## Scott1

Richard Tallach said:


> Sometimes Q. 191 of the WLC is mentioned as evidence of postmil tendencies:-
> 
> _Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> 
> A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances,purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends._
> 
> But I think that if the commissioners had wanted to make an issue of the millennial issue they'd have devoted a chapter and/or question to it.



It seems this question also fits into an amillennial position- the idea of realizing the invisible rule of Christ, being made visible through His Church, through the lives of His people.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pastor Linehan,

Reverend Winzer is probably one of the most studied men on the Confession and the historical documents associated with it. I would also like to inform you that amillenialism is a rather new term. It would have been called Postmil prior to the the recent terminology as it is used today. There were different strains of thought concerning it. I know many Post mils who do not hold to a literal 1000 year reign of Christ and I know some who do. I do know that a few I have spoken with do believe that the millennium did start with the binding of Satan by Christ at his first advent. There are differing opinions. I would recommend you get a book by Cornelius P. Venema 

Dr. Venema discusses the history behind the doctrinal understandings that most books do not discuss. Post Mil and A mil are really classified as the same until recently, even though they differ in modern day terms of the Kingdom and it's relationship here on earth.

The Promise of the Future

I do not see that Historic Premil would have been heavily advocated at the Assembly nor understood in the same sense as we view it today as Rev. Winzer has proceeded to inform you. Two of the most influential Congregationalists of the time were the Reverends Thomas Goodwin and John Owen. I imagine that their views would have been the predominant view in the congregational churches. I keep reading a few posts that seem to indicate that most if not all the congregationalists were Premil. I find that hard to believe. But would be rather intrigued to know if that is true or not. 

I do know this. Between the 3 major confessions of the time one would definitely need to hold to a Covenant Theology that maintained an affirmation of the Covenants of Works and Grace that most dispensationalists and modern day New Covenant Theologians do not hold to. I do know that the Historical Premil's do hold that Isreal and the Church are not two distinct identities as some have tried to redefine through their eschatological view. They are both the Ecclesia of God. The Church is the true Isreal of God. Spurgeon who came a few centuries later admired the confessions and he was historical premil. I imagine that is the way some Presbyterian's view the Westminster also. They admire it but don't necessarily hold to it.

Be Encouraged,
Randy


----------



## Baptist-1689er

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Pastor Linehan,
> 
> Reverend Winzer is probably one of the most studied men on the Confession and the historical documents associated with it. I would also like to inform you that amillenialism is a rather new term. It would have been called Postmil prior to the the recent terminology as it is used today. There were different strains of thought concerning it. I know many Post mils who do not hold to a literal 1000 year reign of Christ and I know some who do. I do know that a few I have spoken with do believe that the millennium did start with the binding of Satan by Christ at his first advent. There are differing opinions. I would recommend you get a book by Cornelius P. Venema
> 
> Dr. Venema discusses the history behind the doctrinal understandings that most books do not discuss. Post Mil and A mil are really classified as the same until recently, even though they differ in modern day terms of the Kingdom and it's relationship here on earth.
> 
> The Promise of the Future
> 
> I do not see that Historic Premil would have been heavily advocated at the Assembly nor understood in the same sense as we view it today as Rev. Winzer has proceeded to inform you. Two of the most influential Congregationalists of the time were the Reverends Thomas Goodwin and John Owen. I imagine that their views would have been the predominant view in the congregational churches. I keep reading a few posts that seem to indicate that most if not all the congregationalists were Premil. I find that hard to believe. But would be rather intrigued to know if that is true or not.
> 
> I do know this. Between the 3 major confessions of the time one would definitely need to hold to a Covenant Theology that maintained an affirmation of the Covenants of Works and Grace that most dispensationalists and modern day New Covenant Theologians do not hold to. I do know that the Historical Premil's do hold that Isreal and the Church are not two distinct identities as some have tried to redefine through their eschatological view. They are both the Ecclesia of God. The Church is the true Isreal of God. Spurgeon who came a few centuries later admired the confessions and he was historical premil. I imagine that is the way some Presbyterian's view the Westminster also. They admire it but don't necessarily hold to it.
> 
> Be Encouraged,
> Randy



Gracious Brother,

Thank you for your insightful imput.


----------



## Smith

Sorry, I missed the second page of the thread!

Allan A. MacRae was part of the founding of Westminster, and he was premill, but not dispensationalist. I would to whom you refer as dispensationalist there. That would be interesting to know.

The WCF statement (32:2) makes use of the brief Scriptural language ("last day", etc.) without interpretation. Historic premillennarians therefore interpret that language in the same way they interpret the Scriptures themselves. They have no difficulty subscribing to that paragraph.

S.P. Smith


----------



## tcalbrecht

Smith said:


> Sorry, I missed the second page of the thread!
> 
> *Allan A. MacRae was part of the founding of Westminster, and he was premill, but not dispensationalist.* I would to whom you refer as dispensationalist there. That would be interesting to know.




Macrae is is often cited as a a dispensationalist in the literature, and Frame identified him as an editor of the _New Scofield Reference Bible_. His resignation letter to Westminster Seminary is very "dispensational friendly". Macrae was also a founder of the Bible PC which was well-known for its tolerance if not embrace of dispensationalism.


----------



## Smith

tcalbrecht said:


> Macrae is is often cited as a a dispensationalist in the literature, and Frame identified him as an editor of the _New Scofield Reference Bible_. His resignation letter to Westminster Seminary is very "dispensational friendly". Macrae was also a founder of the Bible PC which was well-known for its tolerance if not embrace of dispensationalism.




If I may, I would like to correct this. I was a student and friend of MacRae. I know from personal instruction and conversation that he was certainly not dispensationalist. He was historic premill and covenantal. I can safely say that he subscribed fully and strictly to the WCF as well. Our church had a close relationship with him, as our pastor had also been his student and maintained an ongoing relationship. He often came to speak. He was the primary reason I attended his seminary. He disagreed with dispensationalism, and it was from his influence that our pastor also disagreed with dispensationalism--and hence me too.

He did, though, regard dispensationalists and amillennarians as genuine brethren, and so he willingly worked together with them. He did work on the New Scofield Reference Bible, but his contributions do not reflect dispensationalism. He also published articles in Bibliotheca Sacra (Dallas Seminary), but again not espousing dispensationalism. He also accepted amillennarians (e.g., Floyd Hamilton, in missions work, from what I have heard). From my personal knowledge of him, he had a clear conception of when *not* to draw a line of separation from brethren. Genuine brethren who happened also to be dispensationalist and amillennial were allies to him in the defense and proclamation of the faith.

Pardon me if I am beating this too hard. I just wanted to set the record straight.

(BTW, the New Scofiend Reference Bible (1967) has a very nice translation--the KJV with certain archaic expressions updated. It is a good work as a translation, and there are some notes that are quite good. It is not as bad the original "old" Scofield. I actually would recommend it as a translation, if you have an affinity for the KJV. This edition was out of print, but Oxford has come out with a 40th year anniversary edition, at least for now. Get it while you can, and anything MacRae wrote!)

S.P. Smith
Reformed Baptist
Oak Harbor, WA


----------



## Peairtach

Smith said:


> Dear Pastor Linehan,
> I would like to add some information that might be pertinent. There is another denomination of Presbyterians known as Bible Presbyterians. They have a seminary in Tacoma (WA), Western Reformed Seminary, which as a school takes a historical premill position. Bible Presbyterians as a denomination were historic/classic premill. In seminary I studied under Dr. Allan A. MacRae, who was one such outspoken historic premill--and Reformed--Presbyterian. These men certainly regarded and now regard their position as fully consistent with the WCF. I believe they would say the WCF does not address the question. (I tend to agree.)
> 
> Some 60 years ago a school split off from Westminster Seminary--Faith Theological Seminary. One issue in the division, I believe, was the millennial issue--FTS was historic premill and generally associated with the Bible Presbyterian church. The notion that historic premill might be in conflict with the WCF was not an issue.
> 
> I think it is important to distinguish the official declaration of the WCF as a church document from the personal views of the Westminster divines. They obviously could have inserted more specific statements on the subject. We should be careful not to read more into the text than it actually asserts. I would be curious to know exactly which statements in the WCF definitely rule out the historic premill view.
> 
> I will add that I am a Reformed Baptist who is historic premill. I personally have no doubt that my position is consistent with the LBCF. The Confession does not address the question. Yet, I acknowledge that the differences between premill and amill/postmill can involve broad contrasts in our future outlook and in our methods of Bible interpretation--affecting our exegesis and application of many passages. As a result, it can be difficult for premill'ers and amill'ers to work well together. It is a big enough issue that I have sometimes found it quite difficult to sit under amill teaching. But this is not a matter of Confessional subscription.
> 
> S.P. Smith



The late apologist, Dr Francis Schaeffer split with them, and he was premil.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Richard Tallach said:


> The late apologist, Dr Francis Schaeffer split with them, and he was premil.



It was these same Bible Presbyterians, including MacRae, who were not satisfied with an ecumenical Standards wrt eschatology, and made significant modifications to harmonize with the views from their sect. See CHANGES IN THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS ADOPTED IN THE BIBLE PRESBYTERIAN CONSTITUTION.



> “WHEREAS this General Synod has adopted changes in the Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism *which bring our doctrinal standards into harmony with the pre-millennial view* of that blessed hope, the second coming of our Lord;”



But why is that necessary if the WCF was already in harmony with the premil view?

The wording changes made by the BPC demonstrate that the original language was either, a) too broad for the BPC folks, or b) contrary to their definition of premillennialism. They ended up not creating any sort of superior Confession, but merely editorializing their sectarian views.


----------



## Smith

Thank you for posting this "Changes" by the Bible Presbyterians. A little history is also found here: The Presbyterian Church divides and adjusts (1934-1967).

I think there are other possibilities to consider, such as the following line of reasoning. The WCF is not clear on the subject of the millennium. It may arguably be regarded as ambiguous at that point. And perhaps that was deliberate, in order to allow unity among those with differing millennial views. Though the BPC may have thought their premill view was consistent with the Standards, they may have wanted to go further and make an unambiguous standard for their own denomination. After all, it does seem apparent that they wanted to maintain a distinctly premill denomination. The modified standard would then be useable as a constitutional instrument for ruling their church, e.g., explicitly requiring their officers to be premill. Therefore, given this possible line of thought, this means their actions do not necessarily imply that the BPC viewed the WCF as distinctly contrary to premillennialism. Moreover, their actions cannot entail that the Westminster Standards themselves (objectively, on their own terms) are clearly anti-premill. (The BPC men were not the authors of the Standards).

In the case of MacRae, he went on later to found a seminary that used the common WCF as its standard, without modification--even though the school was uniformly premill. (I speak of [old] Biblical Theological Seminary.) I also know he later was in the PCA (evidently went with the branch of BPs who merged with RPC and then PCA). I know from personal acquaintance that he loved and used the Westminster Standards as is.

In short:
(1) The fact that the BPs revised the Standards does not imply the Standards must be read as *contrary* to the premill position. They just wanted a distinctly premill document.

(2) MacRae used the common WCF, even as the standard for his seminary, even though he and his school were premill. He could hardly think WCF and premill were contradictory.

A few additional thoughts:
(a) The Westminster Standards are not "ecumenical". The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are examples of ecumenical creeds, according to common usage.

(b) Is it appropriate to label the BPC or premill Reformed brethren as a "sect"? By that rule, it would be easy to call some other small Presbyterian denominations, which have additional distinctives, as "sects". And are Reformed Baptists, with their "revised" confession, also just a "sect", a bunch of discontented people "not satisfied" with the Confession? But rather should we not *want* to *embrace* premill Reformed believers as brethren?

(c) I may be quite mistaken (please correct me), but it seems to me as if some would actually *prefer* to exclude premillennarians as confessionally unorthodox. As a premill Reformed believer, I have sometimes sensed this when looking for a church to join. Perhaps forming separate churches based on eschatology is unavoidable--the perspectives are just too far apart in the end. I would have thought it would be preferrable to minimize division where the Standards are not definite and clear. I would humbly suggest to such minded brethren, though, that if you want to exclude premill Reformed brethren as out of step with your doctrinal standard, then I think you should write that explicitly into the Confession or bylaw. Yet, it would surely be better if we could find ways to work together.


S.P. Smith
Reformed Baptist
Washington


----------



## py3ak

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Reverend Winzer is probably one of the most studied men on the Confession and the historical documents associated with it.



I secretly think of Mr. Winzer as the Australian delegate to the Westminster Assembly.


----------



## Turtle

tcalbrecht said:


> But why is that necessary if the WCF was already in harmony with the premil view?
> 
> The wording changes made by the BPC demonstrate that the original language was either, a) too broad for the BPC folks, or b) contrary to their definition of premillennialism. They ended up not creating any sort of superior Confession, but merely editorializing their sectarian views.



Your point is well taken. Evidently the BPs did not see the WCF to be an adequate expression of the scriptures in this regard. I can allow they did so for the peace of their conscience rather than to press an agenda upon others, especially in view of the explicit mention of freedom that they affirmed in their adopting resolution. I congratulate them for explicitly acknowledging the full freedom of members and officers alike to hold any eschatological view which includes the visible and personal return of our Lord to earth.

Thanks for the link! 



> _“WHEREAS although we hold this view to be taught in God’s Word, we yet recognize that there are sincere Christians who hold to other views of the events which shall accompany our Lord’s return but who nevertheless are one with us in receiving the system of doctrine taught in the Bible and stated in our doctrinal standards;
> 
> “THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this General Synod declares that subscription to our doctrinal standards upon the part of all office-bearers shall be understood as leaving them and our churches and members *free to hold any eschatological view which includes the visible and personal return of our Lord to earth*, and which is not otherwise inconsistent with the system of doctrine of the Bible and the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church.”
> _


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

py3ak said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reverend Winzer is probably one of the most studied men on the Confession and the historical documents associated with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I secretly think of Mr. Winzer as the Australian delegate to the Westminster Assembly.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Rev. Winzer is the E.F. Hutton of the PB (it's an old television commercial reference that geezers like me will resonate with). 

AMR


----------



## tcalbrecht

Smith said:


> In short:
> (1) The fact that the BPs revised the Standards does not imply the Standards must be read as *contrary* to the premill position. They just wanted a distinctly premill document.



Not "in harmony" according to the BPC.



Smith said:


> (2) MacRae used the common WCF, even as the standard for his seminary, even though he and his school were premill. He could hardly think WCF and premill were contradictory.



A seminary is not an ecclesiastical body. Obviously there are other factors at play in when coing up with a statement of faith for a seminary.



Smith said:


> A few additional thoughts:
> (a) The Westminster Standards are not "ecumenical". The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are examples of ecumenical creeds, according to common usage.



Ecumenical among Presbyterians, not the broader ecclesiastical community. That was my meaning. The BPC chose to narrow the confessional standards going so far as to have to explicitly state that those who do not hold to the details of their new confessional standards are still welcome as officers. That is an odd statement for a church body to have to make. 



Smith said:


> (b) Is it appropriate to label the BPC or premill Reformed brethren as a "sect"?



The intent of the BPC was to narrow their standards in an area where, previoulsy, these same men argued for liberty while (briefly) in the OPC. That is a sectarian move in my opinion.



Smith said:


> (c) I may be quite mistaken (please correct me), but it seems to me as if some would actually *prefer* to exclude premillennarians as confessionally unorthodox.



I believe they should take an exception.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reverend Winzer is probably one of the most studied men on the Confession and the historical documents associated with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I secretly think of Mr. Winzer as the Australian delegate to the Westminster Assembly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. Rev. Winzer is the E.F. Hutton of the PB (it's an old television commercial reference that geezers like me will resonate with).
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


Yes! As the commercial says for Campbell's Soup... The Right Rev. Winzer is " Um, um Good!!"  Seriously, We Do love you Brother!


----------



## bookslover

Edward said:


> rd;677716]I do believe a case can be made that a PreMil should state that exception to the appropriate court. In the PCA, it likely wouldn't present any bar to ordination. I'd be happy if we could just keep the Dispensationalists out of office (who shouldn't be allowed an exception).



Why should a historic premil take an exception to the Standards, since the Standards don't take an explicit millennial position one way or another? As for dispensationalists (who are premil), they can be defeated on other theological grounds - namely, their dispensationalism.


----------



## tcalbrecht

bookslover said:


> Why should a historic premil take an exception to the Standards, since the Standards don't take an explicit millennial position one way or another? As for dispensationalists (who are premil), they can be defeated on other theological grounds - namely, their dispensationalism.



While the millennium is not mentioned per se in the Westminster Standard, the doctrine of the general resurrection and general judgment "at the last day" are fairly well articulated in them. This is evidenced by the BPC modifications to the standards to bring the into "harmony" with the premil position. Historic premillennialists should take exceptions along the lines specified in the BPC modifications, in my opinion.

E.g., 


> At the [-]last day[/-] _return of the Lord Jesus_, such _living persons_ as are found [-]alive[/-] _in him_ shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead _in Christ_ shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls for ever.” (WCF 32:2)


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Previously on this thread, a gracious brother and well studied Authority in matters regarding the Confession declared regarding the Westminster Assembly "I doubt there was a strict premil view." May I humbly submit the words of Professor William Barker ( who was the Vice-President for academic affairs, and professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, PA ) the following words, "*Several *of the Westminster divines, however, were premillennial" (Puritan Profiles : 54 Contemporaries of the Westminister Assembly {Mentor: 1999} 166). Was this esteemed historian of the Presbyterian church guilty of reading history as ideology?


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> Was this esteemed historian of the Presbyterian church guilty of reading history as ideology?



It is a common practice of historians to assume other historians are correct and not check primary sources for themselves. As noted, chiliast or millennarian are the terms used in the 17th century. These simply do not equate to what we today would call premillennialism, even if secondary sources state otherwise.


----------



## Scott1

Smith said:


> Thank you for posting this "Changes" by the Bible Presbyterians. A little history is also found here: The Presbyterian Church divides and adjusts (1934-1967).
> 
> I think there are other possibilities to consider, such as the following line of reasoning. The WCF is not clear on the subject of the millennium.
> I think the Westminster Standards are clear on what they address. They do not explicitly address millennial views.
> 
> It may arguably be regarded as ambiguous at that point.
> I don't think the Westminster Standards are ambiguous. They are self consciously limited to things that were clear and convincing from Scripture and did not seek to bind men's conscienses with things not clear and convincing from Scripture. I don't think they ever were ambiguous, only careful not to state more than or less than what was clear by that standard from Scripture.
> And perhaps that was deliberate, in order to allow unity among those with differing millennial views. Though the BPC may have thought their premill view was consistent with the Standards, they may have wanted to go further and make an unambiguous standard for their own denomination. After all, it does seem apparent that they wanted to maintain a distinctly premill denomination. The modified standard would then be useable as a constitutional instrument for ruling their church, e.g., explicitly requiring their officers to be premill. Therefore, given this possible line of thought, this means their actions do not necessarily imply that the BPC viewed the WCF as distinctly contrary to premillennialism.
> It seems to me the denomination would not have seen fit to modify the Westminster Standards if they though a premillennial view was consistent with it.
> 
> It is no small thing to amend the Confession.
> 
> Moreover, their actions cannot entail that the Westminster Standards themselves (objectively, on their own terms) are clearly anti-premill. (The BPC men were not the authors of the Standards).
> 
> I understand what you are saying- they were not "anti" any millennial view. Rather, they implicitly assumed a premill or amill view in a couple doctrines. That's different, but it does get us to the same point- the premillennial view does not quite fit.
> 
> In the case of MacRae, he went on later to found a seminary that used the common WCF as its standard, without modification--even though the school was uniformly premill. (I speak of [old] Biblical Theological Seminary.) I also know he later was in the PCA (evidently went with the branch of BPs who merged with RPC and then PCA). I know from personal acquaintance that he loved and used the Westminster Standards as is.
> 
> In short:
> (1) The fact that the BPs revised the Standards does not imply the Standards must be read as *contrary* to the premill position. They just wanted a distinctly premill document.
> 
> It seems it does... that's why they had to change the Confession, and bind their officers by the change.
> 
> (2) MacRae used the common WCF, even as the standard for his seminary, even though he and his school were premill. He could hardly think WCF and premill were contradictory.
> 
> A few additional thoughts:
> (a) The Westminster Standards are not "ecumenical". The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are examples of ecumenical creeds, according to common usage.
> 
> Good distinction, good point.
> 
> (b) Is it appropriate to label the BPC or premill Reformed brethren as a "sect"? By that rule, it would be easy to call some other small Presbyterian denominations, which have additional distinctives, as "sects". And are Reformed Baptists, with their "revised" confession, also just a "sect", a bunch of discontented people "not satisfied" with the Confession? But rather should we not *want* to *embrace* premill Reformed believers as brethren?
> 
> I think we can overuse words like "cult," "heresy," and even "sect." We need to be very careful, ninth commandment in view, to reserve those terms for their real substance.
> 
> I cannot imagine calling the BPC denomination a "sect," nor would I even term classical premillenialism "serious error." (Modern dispensational premillenialism maybe, but not classical).
> 
> I can't speak for others, but perhaps "sect" was being used in a sense of sectioning off a denomination, not in its primary sense a generally orthodox belief system but with some peculiar doctrines, perhaps amounting to serious error.
> 
> (c) I may be quite mistaken (please correct me), but it seems to me as if some would actually *prefer* to exclude premillennarians as confessionally unorthodox. As a premill Reformed believer, I have sometimes sensed this when looking for a church to join. Perhaps forming separate churches based on eschatology is unavoidable--the perspectives are just too far apart in the end. I would have thought it would be preferrable to minimize division where the Standards are not definite and clear. I would humbly suggest to such minded brethren, though, that if you want to exclude premill Reformed brethren as out of step with your doctrinal standard, then I think you should write that explicitly into the Confession or bylaw. Yet, it would surely be better if we could find ways to work together.
> 
> S.P. Smith
> Reformed Baptist
> Washington




*Great thread, I'm rating it a "5" out of "5."*

I'm coming toward an opinion I would not have thought possible not too long ago-

That a classical premillennial view would need to take exception to the Westminster Standards.

It seems Westminster Larger Catechism question 87 and Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXII assume some sort of amillennial or postmillennial view. 

For the PCA it would need to be "not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion."

My thinking today is, a simple classical premillennial view alone is not out of accord. I would want to inquire further of the candidate elder or deacon's views, but it doesn't seem that view alone would be out of accord.

By the way, if I were defining the views of the PCA generally, I would look to three men, all unified in important ways as the "doctrinal face" of the denomination (not necessarily in order)

1) RC Sproul
2) D James Kennedy
3) James Montgomery Boice

All men greatly used of God in Presbyterianism and Reformed Theology.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this esteemed historian of the Presbyterian church guilty of reading history as ideology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a common practice of historians to assume other historians are correct and not check primary sources for themselves. As noted, chiliast or millennarian are the terms used in the 17th century. These simply do not equate to what we today would call premillennialism, even if secondary sources state otherwise.
Click to expand...


Dear Brother, your statement is, it seems to me, consistent with my previous claim that it is a "commonly understood" point of historical theology that one could find views at the Assembly held by several people who have been interpreted as holding to a position which we would presently refer to as premillennial. Are you suggesting that such people, for example, as William Twisse, Thomas Goodwin, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Bridge, Herbert Palmer, or Stephen Marshall could not be called, in any sense of the term, Premillennial? I am just interested in your thoughts at this point. Thanks for your input on this issue.


----------



## Archlute

Having read the writings of the church fathers, having read various systematics on the matter (Reformed and otherwise), and having read works by recognized scholars attempting to explain millennial views of the fathers, reformers, puritans, et al, I am having a very hard time taking Matthew's views with any seriousness.

Of course there will always be slight variations in eschatalogical understanding and articulation, even from within the same camp and from within the same period, but to say that premil views today differ significantly from 17th century (or other period) views only holds true if you are comparing the dispensational view with older views. I have understood this thread to have been a discussion of classical premillennial views. If Matthew is trying to say that historic premils today differ in substance from historic premils of an earlier era then that is just a flawed assertion.


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> Dear Brother, your statement is, it seems to me, consistent with my previous claim that it is a "commonly understood" point of historical theology that one could find views at the Assembly held by several people who have been interpreted as holding to a position which we would presently refer to as premillennial. Are you suggesting that such people, for example, as William Twisse, Thomas Goodwin, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Bridge, Herbert Palmer, or Stephen Marshall could not be called, in any sense of the term, Premillennial? I am just interested in your thoughts at this point. Thanks for your input on this issue.



What is called "football" in the States and in Australia are two different games.

As noted, there may be points of resemblance with premillennialism in what some of these divines taught, but that doesn't make it premillennialism. A chiliast might sound like he was premillennial but one simple qualification would indicate that he held to something completely different. He might hold that the advent of Christ which ushers in the Millennium is not "personal." Premillennialism teaches a visible and personal return of Christ. The use of that one word "personal" changes everything.

Listen to what Charles Augustus Briggs (Whither, p. 205) has to say on the matter:



> These extracts explain Robert Baylie's statement in his letter to William Spang, September 5, 1645, that "The most of the chief divines here, not only Independents, but others, such as Tvvisse, Marshall, and Palmer, and many more, are express Chiliasts." They were Chiliasts in the generic sense, embracing all those who looked forward to the golden age of the Church; but Gouge, Marshall, Palmer, Tuckney, and other chief divines were not Premillenarians.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Archlute said:


> Having read the writings of the church fathers, having read various systematics on the matter (Reformed and otherwise), and having read works by recognized scholars attempting to explain millennial views of the fathers, reformers, puritans, et al, I am having a very hard time taking Matthew's views with any seriousness.
> 
> Of course there will always be slight variations in eschatalogical understanding and articulation, even from within the same camp and from within the same period, but to say that premil views today differ significantly from 17th century (or other period) views only holds true if you are comparing the dispensational view with older views. I have understood this thread to have been a discussion of classical premillennial views. If Matthew is trying to say that historic premils today differ in substance from historic premils of an earlier era then that is just a flawed assertion.



In my survey of the literature, it does seem at variance with the judgment of a number of careful scholars of historical theology to assert that examples of Premillennial teaching cannot be found either in the early church or 17th Century England. 

It seems that it is true that one can be guilty of either asserting too much or affirming too little in this area of study.


----------



## DMcFadden

Isn't the library at Covenant Seminary the Buswell library, named after the noted premillennial mid-tribber, J. Oliver Buswell where he served from 1956 until 1970?


----------



## OPC'n

Isn't the WCF amil?


----------



## Smith

As premillennialist Buswell has been mentioned (and I happen to esteem his thinking), I have the following quote to offer, just by way of information:



> Robert Bailie, a Scottish delegate to the Westminster Assembly in the 1640's, mentions that there were chiliasts in some of the highest positions in the Assembly. He names Twiss, the prolocutor, as a chiliast. I have not been able to determine the form of millennial doctrine to which Twiss adhered.
> 
> John Lightfoot, a member of the Westminster Assembly, in his work against Heresies takes a strong anti-chiliast position. However, he noted that there existed in the colonies a type of chiliasm which teaches that the Millennium will come after the resurrection of the righteous, and he suggests that such a type of chiliasm would not be so objectionable.



From: J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Zondervan, 1962): Vol. 2, p. 494.

BTW, as I scan over his entire section on eschatology, I also see no discussion of whether or not premillennialism is in harmony with the Westminster Standards. Of course, he generally does uphold the Standards, but I believe in his situation, subscription did not require precise conformity on this issue.

S.P. Smith
Reformed Baptist
Washington


----------



## Smith

Sorry for posting twice in a row. I hope this isn't against protocol....

This thread has made me revise my thinking about this question. I had never examined the WLC on the premill question before. My premill position holds that believers are raised before the millennium, which involves their reigning with Christ on earth for about 1000 years. Here is my current reaction then regarding the Standards:

The WLC #87-90, but esp. #90, assert that believers will be raised, judged, and received into heaven forever--all at the resurrection and day of judgment. #88 makes clear that the judgment is _immediately_ after the resurrection. WLC #90 is worth quoting (my emphasis):



> Question 90: What shall be done to the righteous at the day of judgment?
> Answer: At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted, shall join with him in the judging of reprobate angels and men, and shall be received into heaven, where they shall be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery; filled with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and holy angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion, which the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment.



The WCF chs. 32 & 33 are not as detailed or explicit, and they do not present much difficulty at all for premillennialism in my view. Looking at the WCF alone does not resolve the issue. Indeed, the Standards as a whole do not mention "millennium" at all, so the issue boils down to the particular view of Judgment that is being held in the premill position. In theory, some premill positions could be in harmony with the Standards--_until_ we see WLC #88 & 90. These statements leave no room for any earthly reign with Christ after the resurrection--and this is an essential chronological element in the premill view (at least my view). One could conceivably modify one's view of when judgment occurs, but still there can be no eartly reign if the sequence is resurrection then immediately heaven forever. So, the problem remains.

So, it seems to me that thought WCF does not materially address the issue, the WLC does--and I am glad I now see that. I can also understand that perhaps the WCF is therefore silent regarding an eschatological "millennium", because in its view there is none. That is, the Puritan post-mill view was assumed. Or do we have any evidence of the authors' intent to leave the question open, permitting premillennialism? That is still an _attractive_ thought, but it would seem inconsistent with their evident intention to be explicit in the WLC. Surely the Confession and the Catechism must have the same intended meaning. But then why is the WCF less explicit than the WLC?


----------



## Scott1

> What is called "football" in the States and in Australia are two different games.



No, no you don't understand...

Football is football. Men running around in shorts kicking a ball...
that's soccer.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Here is some background on the Westminster Larger Catechism.

S. W. Carruthers writes:
The Larger Catechism follows the order of the Confession, with two exceptions. (1) The doctrine of the Church and its privileges appears earlier, being connected with the work of the Redeemer; (2) the relation of believers to Christ at and after death is placed in the first section, where the benefits of believers are specified, instead of at the end. The order in which the subjects are taken up in the Shorter Catechism is the same as that of the Larger, except that Faith and Repentance have their more logical position in the second division of the Shorter Catechism, which deals with the duty required of man, instead of being placed beside Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification as in the first division of the Larger Catechism, which deals with what man is to believe concerning God. But the connection between the three documents is still more close. The Larger Catechism is a longer document than the Confession; this is due to the requirements of an advanced Catechism, many of the subjects being more subdivided, and some secondary and more practical aspects of the doctrines being introduced, which were not in the Confession. Where identical matters are treated of in the three documents it is in almost identical language. 
S Catechism

Chad Van Dixhoorn writes:

At times the _Larger Catechism _asks unique questions. Sometimes these extra questions may not strike us as especially important, such as question sixteen, which asks about the creation of angels, or question nineteen, which inquires about God’s providence toward angels. But other times the contributions are more obviously significant. The _Larger Catechism_, for example, presents rules to interpret and apply the law of God, and spells out the differences between justification and sanctification. The _Larger Catechism _also goes into more detail about our triune God than does the _Shorter Catechism_, and has more to say about Jesus Christ. The _Larger Catechism _has multiple questions on the mediatorial role of Christ, and Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. Indeed, the _Larger Catechism _makes numerous contributions not covered by the _Shorter Catechism_, all supporting the idea that the _Larger Catechism _was written to give us the profound and important matters of the Word of God.

But perhaps the largest remaining contribution of the _Larger Catechism is _one noted by Robert Godfrey. Godfrey points out that the _Larger Catechism _frequently speaks of the church, where the _Shorter Catechism is _concerned with the individual.27 This is extremely important. The _Larger Catechism _makes frequent mention of ministers of the gospel and carries on extensive discussions about the outward and ordinary means of grace, where the _Shorter Catechism _says almost nothing on the same matters. The _Larger Catechism _broadens its lens in order to focus on the corporate, public, gathered people of God. Professor Godfrey suggests that “the decision to eliminate a doctrine of the church from the _Shorter Catechism _may have made sense in a context where it was assumed that catechumens would have moved on to the fuller instruction of the _Larger Catechism_”but he warns that “where the _Larger Catechism _no longer functions in that way . . . a very serious omission exists;” there could be a lack of teaching about the church, in the church.28

Godfrey has hit the proverbial nail on the head. His observation may explain why so many people appreciate the _Shorter Catechism _and not the _Larger Catechism_:The _Shorter Catechism_, like much of North American evangelicalism, focuses on the individual; the _Larger Catechism_, on the other hand, is explicitly corporate and churchly. I think it is fair to add that in places the _Larger Catechism _appears more concerned with the church and the ordinary means of grace (such as preaching, the sacraments, and church discipline) than even the _Confession_.

Of course, if Robert Baillie’s earlier statement is correct, this should not be the case. Baillie thought that the _Catechisms _would not say anything that the _Confession _did not. But it appears that the committee working on the _Catechism _did not always feel bound to follow the wording or content of the _Confession_. Professor John Murray suggested, for example, that the _Larger Catechism’s _teaching on the Covenant of Grace surpasses that of chapter seven, section three of the _Confession_, and that question twenty-two has a better discussion of the imputation of Adam’s sin than the _Confession of Faith_, chapter six, section three.29

27. Godfrey, “The Westminster Larger Catechism,” 134-38.
28. Godfrey, “The Westminster Larger Catechism,” 135; see also 135-38. Godfrey also discusses T. F. Torrance’s allegations of the _Larger Catechism’s _legalism (132-34, 142), and its lack of focus on the Holy Spirit (140, 142). Godfrey points out that the _Larger Catechism _speaks of the law about as much as _Calvin’s Catechism, _and less than the _Shorter Catechism. _He further notes that the Holy Spirit is mentioned in eighteen percent of the _Larger Catechism’s _questions — approximately double that found in _Calvin’s Catechism _or the _Shorter Catechism _(142).
29. John Murray, “The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” in _Collected Writings of John Murray, 4: Studies in Theology _(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 258-63.
"The Making of the Westminster Larger Catechism" by Chad B. Van Dixhoorn


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Scott1 said:


> What is called "football" in the States and in Australia are two different games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no you don't understand...
> 
> Football is football. Men running around in shorts kicking a ball...
> that's soccer.
Click to expand...


Now that is Funny! And so True!


----------



## Scott1

Smith said:


> Sorry for posting twice in a row. I hope this isn't against protocol....
> 
> This thread has made me revise my thinking about this question. I had never examined the WLC on the premill question before. My premill position holds that believers are raised before the millennium, which involves their reigning with Christ on earth for about 1000 years. Here is my current reaction then regarding the Standards:
> 
> The WLC #87-90, but esp. #90, assert that believers will be raised, judged, and received into heaven forever--all at the resurrection and day of judgment. #88 makes clear that the judgment is _immediately_ after the resurrection. WLC #90 is worth quoting (my emphasis):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 90: What shall be done to the righteous at the day of judgment?
> Answer: At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted, shall join with him in the judging of reprobate angels and men, and shall be received into heaven, where they shall be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery; filled with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and holy angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion, which the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF chs. 32 & 33 are not as detailed or explicit, and they do not present much difficulty at all for premillennialism in my view. Looking at the WCF alone does not resolve the issue. Indeed, the Standards as a whole do not mention "millennium" at all, so the issue boils down to the particular view of Judgment that is being held in the premill position. In theory, some premill positions could be in harmony with the Standards--_until_ we see WLC #88 & 90. These statements leave no room for any earthly reign with Christ after the resurrection--and this is an essential chronological element in the premill view (at least my view). One could conceivably modify one's view of when judgment occurs, but still there can be no eartly reign if the sequence is resurrection then immediately heaven forever. So, the problem remains.
> 
> So, it seems to me that thought WCF does not materially address the issue, the WLC does--and I am glad I now see that. I can also understand that perhaps the WCF is therefore silent regarding an eschatological "millennium", because in its view there is none. That is, the Puritan post-mill view was assumed. Or do we have any evidence of the authors' intent to leave the question open, permitting premillennialism? That is still an _attractive_ thought, but it would seem inconsistent with their evident intention to be explicit in the WLC. Surely the Confession and the Catechism must have the same intended meaning. But then why is the WCF less explicit than the WLC?
Click to expand...


Great question.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XXXII
> Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
> 
> I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:[1] but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them:[2] the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.[3] And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.[4] Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.
> 
> II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:[5] and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.[6]
> 
> III. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.[7]



It does appear the Westminster Larger Catechism assumes some sort of amillennial or postmillenial view (cf questions 87-90). It's as if there is "no other game in town."

It also seems the best we can say of the Confession is there is an inference that the raising of all men, and the judgment are part of the same event.

Here is where I would say, in interpreting the Westminster Standards, which in the PCA, one has to do in order to "state the specific instances in which he may differ with the _Confession of Faith_ and _Catechisms_in any of their statements and/or propositions." (BCO 21-4), that one would assume the Standards are internally consistent.

The burden of proof would be to say that the Westminster Confession is intending to allow a millennial time gap between His coming and final judgment. Since it is a clear inference this is not the case in the WLC, there would need to be a similar clear inference that there is intended to be at least the possibility of that in the Confession to create ambiguity.

The Divines were very careful in choosing their language to reflect their meaning- no more no less. Their motivation was not to create ambiguity for others to later sort out, but to confess a "reformed Christianity"- summarizing the doctrine of Scripture, reforming back toward the apostolic Christianity of the first century.

One gets the impression reading the Puritans, Calvin, and the Confessions that premillenialism, even classical premillenialism was not even considered a viable option by them. It looks like it was to some early church fathers, but not in the Reformation era.

All this to say, in the end, I still don't see how the timing of the Second Coming and judgment, even inserting a millennium time gap, by itself goes against the fundamentals of the system. All men are still raised, judged, and Christ comes again.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Madcow said:


> Isn't the WCF amil?



Your four word post may well be the clearest statement to this point. Thank you!


----------



## MW

Scott1 said:


> Football is football. Men running around in shorts kicking a ball...
> that's soccer.



Clearly your ideology is interpreting your history!


----------



## MW

A primary source to challenge the "judgment of a number of careful scholars." Thomas Goodwin serves as a good example of the chiliasm of the Assembly divines. The qualifications he makes to his teaching demonstrates that he would consider the premillennial view of Christ's personal reign on earth to be an error.

Thomas Goodwin (Works 1:521):



> The third degree of this new world is this, that when this glorious time cometh, that Jesus Christ will thus call home both Jew and Gentile, and have a new world in respect of multitudes of men of all nations coming in unto him, to make this new world the more complete, he will bring part of heaven down to it. This, I say, is more controverted. I shall but express to you briefly some grounds for it, which I confess for these twenty years I have not known well how to answer, and that is all that I can say.
> 
> It is not that *Christ himself* shall come down—that is *the old error* of some — to reign at Jerusalem; which *error* indeed the fathers spake against, and which hath brought a blemish and absurdity upon that opinion. But that under Christ, *reigning in heaven*, — for certainly his court is there, and that is his temple, and he sitteth there both over this world and that to come, — yet that under him part of heaven shall come down and rule this world, to make the glory of it so much the more complete, to put down Adam's world, I shall give you rather those reasons.


----------



## MW

Another primary source to correct the secondary literature on the nature of the chiliasm which was espoused by Assembly divines. Jeremiah Burroughs, Jerusalem’s Glory, 60-63, also qualifies that the millennial presence of Christ is not His personal presence as it dwells in heaven, but the glory of His presence increased upon earth. "Jerusalem" is interpreted to mean "his Churches," and it is in the hearts of overcoming saints that this glory is revealed.



> The seventh thing that shall be done, when Jerusalem shall be raised, as the praise of the whole Earth; it shall be the glorious presence of Christ that shall be amongst them. I say, the Glorious presence of Christ; *I do not say*, *the Personal presence of Christ in his Body*... But there shall be a more glorious presence of Jesus Christ *in his Churches*, than yet hath been: … For Christ, he is the mornings Star, and God will give them Christ; the presence of Christ shall arise in the Hearts of the saints in another way than formerly; for they were Godly to whom this morning Star is promised; but if you continue to be Godly, and to overcome in the Antichristian time, you shall have this blessing, you shall have the morning Star: They had Christ to justifie them, and to sanctifie them. But they were promised to have Christ yet further, in another more high and glorious presence of his, to be as a morning Star arising *in their Hearts*.


----------



## MW

Yet another primary source, and surely at the mouth of three witnesses the matter must be established notwithstanding all the scholars speaking to the contrary. William Gouge, The progresse of divine Providence, 29, specifically dissociates his view of the millennium from that of the "later Chiliasts:" 



> There are more particular promises concerning a future glory of the Christian Church, set down by the prophets in the Old Testament, and by Christ and his disciples in the New, especially in the book of the Revelation, then we have either heard of or seen in our dayes to be accomplished. The glorious city described, Rev. 21.10, &c., is by many judicious divines taken for a type of a *spiritual*, *glorious estate of the Church of Christ under the gospel yet to come*, and that before his last coming to judgment. I passe by all conceits of our *later Chiliasts* or Millenaries (whom in English we may call thousandaries) who *imagine that Christ shall personally come down from heaven*, in that nature in which after his resurrection he ascended into heaven, and reign here a thousand years with his saints. The certainty of this I leave to be proved by them who are the broaches thereof. But this is most certain, that there are yet better things to come than have been since the first calling of the gentiles. Among other better things to come, the recalling of the Jews is most clearly and plentifully foretold by the prophets.


----------



## Scott1

So then, what kind of kingdom did "chiliasm" envision?

Any idea when or by what theologian(s) there was a break between "chiliasm" and classical premillennialism over the physical presence on earth of our Lord before the millennium?


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Scott1 said:


> So then, what kind of kingdom did "chiliasm" envision?
> 
> Any idea when or by what theologian(s) there was a break between "chiliasm" and classical premillennialism over the physical presence on earth of our Lord before the millennium?


----------



## MW

Scott1 said:


> So then, what kind of kingdom did "chiliasm" envision?



In the words of the Larger Catechism, "the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: ... the ordinances of Christ ... purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted."

Even so, come Lord Jesus!


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, what kind of kingdom did "chiliasm" envision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of the Larger Catechism, "the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: ... the ordinances of Christ ... purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted."
> 
> Even so, come Lord Jesus!
Click to expand...


Sounds a lot like amillenialism to me!


----------



## Scott1

> Westminster Larger Catechism
> [emphasis added]
> 
> Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
> 
> Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, *the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted:* that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
> 
> Question 192: What do we pray for in the third petition?
> 
> Answer: In the third petition (which is, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven), acknowledging, that by nature we and all men are not only utterly unable and unwilling to know and do the will of God, but prone to rebel against his Word, to repine and murmur against his providence, and wholly inclined to do the will of the flesh, and of the devil: we pray, that God would by his Spirit take away from ourselves and others all blindness, weakness, indisposedness, and perverseness of heart; and by his grace make us able and willing to know, do, and submit to his will in all things, with the like humility, cheerfulness, faithfulness, diligence, zeal, sincerity, and constancy, as the angels do in heaven.



Once again, I am in awe at the profundity and clarity of the Westminster Divines. Truly (providentially) amazing!

I find it especially interesting the magistrate is to "countenance and maintain" the church. That stayed in the Catechism even on this side of the Atlantic. That would certainly fit postmillennial views, and with amillennialism. 

So, how was "chiliasm" a different view than that of classical premillenialism- that's the question?

By answering from the Catechsim, it is implied it is the same view of the kingdom and millennium as amill and premill. But the question remains here:

1) How is "chiliasm" as a view differentiated from historical premillennialism? When? By whom?

2) Is the key difference "chiliasm" does not envision a physical (but a spiritual) presense of Christ on earth until His return, whereas premillennialism does envision physical presence for the above to happen?


----------



## MW

Scott, yes, the whole difference lies in the premil belief that Christ must personally appear to usher in the millennium. Biblically orthodox Christianity maintains that Christ is exalted to the right hand of God and sits there until all His enemies are made His footstool. From glory He destroys the working of Satan with the spirit of His mouth and the brightness of His coming. The emphasis is on the spiritual presence of Christ. At the personal appearing of Christ death will be destroyed by the resurrection of the dead and issue in the general and final judgment.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> Sounds a lot like amillenialism to me!



Which is not non-millennialism, but realised millennialism.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> Yet another primary source, and surely at the mouth of three witnesses the matter must be established notwithstanding all the scholars speaking to the contrary. William Gouge, The progresse of divine Providence, 29, specifically dissociates his view of the millennium from that of the "later Chiliasts:"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are more particular promises concerning a future glory of the Christian Church, set down by the prophets in the Old Testament, and by Christ and his disciples in the New, especially in the book of the Revelation, then we have either heard of or seen in our dayes to be accomplished. The glorious city described, Rev. 21.10, &c., is by many judicious divines taken for a type of a *spiritual*, *glorious estate of the Church of Christ under the gospel yet to come*, and that before his last coming to judgment. I passe by all conceits of our *later Chiliasts* or Millenaries (whom in English we may call thousandaries) who *imagine that Christ shall personally come down from heaven*, in that nature in which after his resurrection he ascended into heaven, and reign here a thousand years with his saints. The certainty of this I leave to be proved by them who are the broaches thereof. But this is most certain, that there are yet better things to come than have been since the first calling of the gentiles. Among other better things to come, the recalling of the Jews is most clearly and plentifully foretold by the prophets.
Click to expand...


Dear Brother, I appreciate your two previous witnesses above, and I may revisit them later, but as to this third witness, may I suggest the following:

1. I have not asserted that William Gouge could be interpreted as a Premillennialist.

2. Your quote may actually prove the case that there were chiliasts who "imagine that Christ shall personally come down...and reign here a thousand years with his saints". The work in question I believe is dated to be 1645. This would put Gouge's identification of these "later chiliasts" to be contemporaneous with the meetings of the Assembly (1643-1649). Here we see a form of "chiliasm" which sounds similiar to premillennialism, at least to me.

I have greatly benefited from your input on this subject and look forward to your thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Scott1

Excellent discussion, very helpful.

1) How was "chiliasm" different from amill and premill at all?

2) My understanding is premillenialism (with a physical return of Christ to earth before the millennium) was a popular view among the early church fathers (e.g. first century, c.f. Polycarp). That it was likely the majority view of the (very) early church and gave way to realized millennium thereafter and remained so for most of church history. Is this not correct?


----------



## KMK

Rev Winzer, is there such a thing as 'Historical Premillenialism' at all?


----------



## Baptist-1689er

KMK said:


> Rev Winzer, is there such a thing as 'Historical Premillenialism' at all?


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> 2. Your quote may actually prove the case that there were chiliasts who "imagine that Christ shall personally come down...and reign here a thousand years with his saints". The work in question I believe is dated to be 1645. This would put Gouge's identification of these "later chiliasts" to be contemporaneous with the meetings of the Assembly (1643-1649). Here we see a form of "chiliasm" which sounds similiar to premillennialism, at least to me.



The point here is that Gouge maintains the recalling of the Jews, but dissociates his view from "later chilasts," or premillennialists. Taken in conjunction with the testimony of Goodwin and Burroughs -- the prime suspects of premillennialism amongst Assembly divines -- it proves that chiliasm is not ipso facto premillennialism. It must be positively established that an individual held to a "personal" reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years before that individual can be counted amongst the "later chiliasts." I would suggest that the secondary literature has not been careful to establish this point.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> Rev Winzer, is there such a thing as 'Historical Premillenialism' at all?



Yes, amongst extremists.


----------



## DMcFadden

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev Winzer, is there such a thing as 'Historical Premillenialism' at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, amongst extremists.
Click to expand...


???

"extremists"???

I believe those who hold to historic premillennialism will argue that the early church was made up of those with eschatological views that were largely undefined and unspecific but generally similar to what we now call "premillennialism" and "amillennialism." You are quite right that there is a measure of anachronism in making early eschatological views fit in the straightjackets of later doctrinal precision. But, neither view has been held to be particularly "extreme" that I know of in church history. There have, however, been plenty of extremists who have advocated for each of the three major eschatological positions.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> I believe those who hold to historic premillennialism will argue that the early church was made up of those with eschatological views that were largely undefined and unspecific but generally similar to what we now call "premillennialism" and "amillennialism." You are quite right that there is a measure of anachronism in making early eschatological views fit in the straightjackets of later doctrinal precision.



Yes, this is an anachronism. Why would you defend an historical conclusion which you agree depends upon an historical fallacy?


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev Winzer, is there such a thing as 'Historical Premillenialism' at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, amongst extremists.
Click to expand...


Therefore, in terms of the modern era, should one view such notable Presbyterian ministers as Francis A. Schaeffer, James M. Boice, Allan MacRae, and J. Oliver Buswell as "extremists?"

-----Added 9/2/2009 at 10:18:02 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> Excellent discussion, very helpful.
> 
> 1) How was "chiliasm" different from amill and premill at all?
> 
> 2) My understanding is premillenialism (with a physical return of Christ to earth before the millennium) was a popular view among the early church fathers (e.g. first century, c.f. Polycarp). That it was likely the majority view of the (very) early church and gave way to realized millennium thereafter and remained so for most of church history. Is this not correct?



If I may recommend a book on the subject of the early church:

_"The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church"  By Martin Erdmann (ISBN: 1-59752-446-8)._


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> Therefore, in terms of the modern era, should one view such notable Presbyterian ministers as Francis A. Schaeffer, James M. Boice, Allan MacRae, and J. Oliver Buswell as "extremists?"



It depends if it led them to deny any element of the catholic faith?


----------



## Smith

Scott said (my emphasis):


> Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXII: Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
> II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:[5] and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.
> ...
> The burden of proof would be to say that the Westminster Confession is intending to allow a millennial time gap between His coming and final judgment. Since it is a clear inference this is not the case in the WLC, there would need to be a similar clear inference that there is intended to be at least the possibility of that in the Confession to create ambiguity.
> 
> The Divines were very careful in choosing their language to reflect their meaning- no more no less. Their motivation was not to create ambiguity for others to later sort out, but to confess a "reformed Christianity"- summarizing the doctrine of Scripture, reforming back toward the apostolic Christianity of the first century.



I agree. I apply the same principle in reading the WCF on subjects such as limited atonement, which I believe is expressed in the WCF. So, I have to concede that the intent of the WCF is to express a non-premill understanding, though only in this one statement. The WCF uses the same phraseology as the WLC; it is just that the WCF is terse.

It seems to me that whatever premillennialists there were at the Assembly, they went along with their postmill brethren in letting them define the eschatological statements.

-----Added 9/4/2009 at 02:51:41 EST-----



KMK said:


> Rev Winzer, is there such a thing as 'Historical Premillenialism' at all?



I believe the correct title is "historic premillennialism", meaning that the version of premillennialism is the historic version, before dispensationalism and its version. "Historical" would be to say it is a premillennialism that has to do with history--which makes no sense. Likewise, we speak of "historic Christianity", not "historical Christianity". Hence, various non-dispensational premill views are categorized under "historic premillennialism". I believe chiliasm (of one sort or another) is also included here.

I think it also helps to keep the basics in mind:
1. It has to do with the time of Christ's return. One is either pre- or post-mill. You either place the "millennium" before or after Christ's return. There is no alternative.

2. It then also has to do with the nature of the "millennium" kingdom. One either regards the "millennium" literally or not (figuratively, spiritually). Further, one either regards the kingdom as literally on earth, with Christ reigning personally on earth, or not (reigning from heaven and/or in the hearts of his people).

The Westminster Standards evidently exclude a literal earthly reign after Christ returns, which is the historic premill view. In theory, though, the following combinations could be allowable:
(a) premill return followed by heavenly/spiritual reign, for literally 1000 years or a figurative "millennium";
(b) postmill return preceded by heavenly/spiritual reign, for literally 1000 years or a figurative "millennium".
So, Westminster seems to allow today's amill and postmill views, as well as a theoretical premill, which I do not know if anyone has held.


----------



## Scott1

Very helpful in understanding this, thank you.

A few comments below.



Smith said:


> Scott said (my emphasis):
> 
> 
> 
> Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXII: Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
> II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:[5] and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.
> ...
> The burden of proof would be to say that the Westminster Confession is intending to allow a millennial time gap between His coming and final judgment. Since it is a clear inference this is not the case in the WLC, there would need to be a similar clear inference that there is intended to be at least the possibility of that in the Confession to create ambiguity.
> 
> The Divines were very careful in choosing their language to reflect their meaning- no more no less. Their motivation was not to create ambiguity for others to later sort out, but to confess a "reformed Christianity"- summarizing the doctrine of Scripture, reforming back toward the apostolic Christianity of the first century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I apply the same principle in reading the WCF on subjects such as limited atonement, which I believe is expressed in the WCF. So, I have to concede that the intent of the WCF is to express a non-premill understanding, though only in this one statement. The WCF uses the same phraseology as the WLC; it is just that the WCF is terse.
> 
> Yes, there is not a lot about it in the Westminster Standards. It was clearly not a focus of a lot of detail to bind men's consciences. But, as you point out, it is there, in one point in the Confession, and in a couple points in the Larger Catechism (questions 97-100 as well.
> 
> It seems to me that whatever premillennialists there were at the Assembly, they went along with their postmill brethren in letting them define the eschatological statements.
> 
> My sense is from what little I have read of the Assembly deliberations and from the documents themselves is that they had a keen sense God was guiding their deliberations for the good of His Church. So, the Standards were the result not really of compromise or of majority votes, but true overwhelming discernment of key doctrines. The Standards were carefully limited to say only those points evidently clear to all or nearly all, as God providentially guided this protection of His doctrine through His Church.
> 
> -----Added 9/4/2009 at 02:51:41 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev Winzer, is there such a thing as 'Historical Premillenialism' at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the correct title is "historic premillennialism", meaning that the version of premillennialism is the historic version, before dispensationalism and its version.
> I have also heard the two termed "classical premillennialism" and "modern dispensational premillennialism." For example, GI Williamson uses those terms in his excellent short summary of millennialism (has also a concise chart showing the millennial view timelines) in his book, _The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes._
> 
> "Historical" would be to say it is a premillennialism that has to do with history--which makes no sense. Likewise, we speak of "historic Christianity", not "historical Christianity". Hence, various non-dispensational premill views are categorized under "historic premillennialism". I believe chiliasm (of one sort or another) is also included here.
> 
> Any thoughts on exactly what "chiliasm" is and how it contrasts with premill or other points of view within premill? It seems to be right in line with realizing millennium through invisible rule, rather than being only under direct physical rule.
> 
> I think it also helps to keep the basics in mind:
> 1. It has to do with the time of Christ's return. One is either pre- or post-mill. You either place the "millennium" before or after Christ's return. There is no alternative.
> 
> 2. It then also has to do with the nature of the "millennium" kingdom. One either regards the "millennium" literally or not (figuratively, spiritually).
> I understand what you are saying here. Amillennialism would describe it as a realized or even a present millennium. That view would say there is a millennium (not as the "a" in front that was assigned to it in relatively recent church history. That millennium actually has Christ ruling, from Heaven, mainly through His Body the Church on earth, right now. Yet there remains a future aspect that will be completed upon His return (Second Coming). On His return, He comes, in amillennialism as judge, to put the last enemy death under His feet fully and finally and to turn the Kingdom over to His Father... Wow!
> 
> This passage was very helpful in understanding that last point (Christ turning over His Kingdom to His Father):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
> 
> 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
> 
> 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
> 
> 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
> 
> 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [/COLOR]
> 
> Further, one either regards the kingdom as literally on earth, with Christ reigning personally on earth, or not (reigning from heaven and/or in the hearts of his people).
> 
> The Westminster Standards evidently exclude a literal earthly reign after Christ returns, which is the historic premill view.
> By inference, it seems. It's not that they were explicitly excluding a literal earthly millennial reign, more like assuming that it was a spiritual reign with overcoming, transforming, redeeming effects that would be consummated later at His return.
> 
> In theory, though, the following combinations could be allowable:
> (a) premill return followed by heavenly/spiritual reign, for literally 1000 years or a figurative "millennium";
> This seems possible. The question is what is happening before that time- is Christ ruling and reigning in any sense over His Creation before that time. And you are right here to include 1,000 years as either a literal 1,000 years (I think of 1,000 orbits of the earth around the sun, that's man best calendar) or is it figurative like forgiving "seventy times seven."
> 
> (b) postmill return preceded by heavenly/spiritual reign, for literally 1000 years or a figurative "millennium".
> So, Westminster seems to allow today's amill and postmill views, as well as a theoretical premill, which I do not know if anyone has held.
Click to expand...


----------



## Baptist-1689er

A book I would like to recommend on the issue of the millennial views of 17th Century English Puritans:

"The Puritan Millennium: Literature and Theology, 1550-1682" By Crawford Gribben (ISBN 978-1-60608-018-4).

He notes, among other things,...

1. Puritanism was an intensely eschatological movement.

2. All three methods of interpretation on the millennial issue were present within the movement (a-, post-, pre-).

3. Approaching this historical question is difficult not only because of the danger of reading history as ideology, but also because of the tendency of coming to it with a "confessional bias."


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> A primary source to challenge the "judgment of a number of careful scholars." Thomas Goodwin serves as a good example of the chiliasm of the Assembly divines. The qualifications he makes to his teaching demonstrates that he would consider the premillennial view of Christ's personal reign on earth to be an error.
> 
> Thomas Goodwin (Works 1:521):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The third degree of this new world is this, that when this glorious time cometh, that Jesus Christ will thus call home both Jew and Gentile, and have a new world in respect of multitudes of men of all nations coming in unto him, to make this new world the more complete, he will bring part of heaven down to it. This, I say, is more controverted. I shall but express to you briefly some grounds for it, which I confess for these twenty years I have not known well how to answer, and that is all that I can say.
> 
> It is not that *Christ himself* shall come down—that is *the old error* of some — to reign at Jerusalem; which *error* indeed the fathers spake against, and which hath brought a blemish and absurdity upon that opinion. But that under Christ, *reigning in heaven*, — for certainly his court is there, and that is his temple, and he sitteth there both over this world and that to come, — yet that under him part of heaven shall come down and rule this world, to make the glory of it so much the more complete, to put down Adam's world, I shall give you rather those reasons.
Click to expand...


And yet, it is likely that he has been traditionally identified as premil partly because of his sermon on Rev. 19:6 entitled "A Glimpse of Zion's Glory" (Works of Thomas Goodwin, Vol. 12, 60-80) where he refers to Christ reigning *"personally."* A quote from the sermon:

"But though it be dark for a while, certainly he shall reign, and the voice
will be glorious and distinct one day, saying, Halleluiah, the Lord God
omnipotent reigneth. He shall reign, *first, personally*; secondly, in his saints.
*First, Personally*. We will not fully determine of the manner of his per
sonal reigning ; but thus far we may see, there is a voice of great waters,
though not distinct, but a probability in his person God and man. He shall
reign upon the earth, here in this world, before that great and solemn day.
There are divers scriptures that have somewhat of this in them. We cannot
give the distinct \oice of those scriptures ; but many of God s saints, they
do hear something, and when a thing grows nearer and nearer, God will
reveal it more distinct : *Zech. xii. 10, They shall look upon him whom
they have pierced, and shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only
son.* It is usually understood either of a spiritual looking by the eye of
faith, or beholding Christ at the da}7 of judgment. But why should we take
it for a spiritual looking, and looking at the day of judgment ? That place
doth not hold out ; that is not the thing intended. They shall mourn every
one apart. This is not like the setting forth of the mourning at the day of
judgment. *And take but this one rule, that all texts are to be understood
literally, except they make against some other scriptures, or except the very
coherence and dependence of the Scripture shews it otherwise, or it makes
against the analogy of faith. Now there is nothing against this, but it may
be so.* A second scripture that seems to hold out somewhat is that in Mat.
xxvi. 29, I will not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine until that day
when I drink it new with you in my Father s kingdom. *It is true this is
likewise interpreted in a mystical sense, but there is no reason why we may
not take it literally ; not in the kingdom of his Father in heaven, but in that
kingdom that he shall come in here to drink the fruit of the vine, to have
communion with his saints in this world, 2 Thes. ii. 8.* *Antichrist shall be
destroyed by the brightness of Christ s coming, the brightness of his personal
coming: and that place, Rev. xx., where it is said, The saints shall reign
with him a thousand years, which cannot be meant reigning with him in
heaven.* It is made as a proper peculiar benefit unto such as had refused
antichrist s government, especially to the Christian church. It is likely
divers of the prophets and patriarchs may come in, but especially it belongs
to the Christian church. *Now the reigning with Christ a thousand years is
not meant reigning with him in heaven, for after these thousand years there
shall be many enemies raised against the church. Gog and Magog shall
gather themselves together. If it were meant of heaven, that could not be ;
and therefore it must be meant of Jesus Christ coming and reigning here
gloriously for a thousand years. And although this may seem to be strange,
yet heretofore it hath not been accounted so ; it hath been a truth received
in the primitive times.* Justin Martyr, that lived presently after John, he
spake of this as a thing that all Christians acknowledged; and likewise
Lactantius hath such expressions in divers places of his seventh book, that
there are glorious times coming, wherein shall be plenty and fruitfulness in
the church ; yet first Rome must be burnt, and Babylon first down, and
brings the sybils, the heathen oracles, for it ; and after a little time there
shall be stirring up of enemies against them. Thus far they go. If they
did not believe that Christ himself should come personally to reign, yet he
shall with his saints reign in a glorious manner, and the church shall be so
raised up in the world outwardly as to be above all the men of the world in
outward glory." (pp. 70-71).

Should one understand these words to reflect a Premil understanding of Rev. 19-20? Have I misread him at this point?

What is of particular interest is that Goodwin references Justin Martyr and Lactanius, who are normally considered clearly to be Pre mil. He seems to be linking his Premil interpretation with prime examples of Premil advocates in the early church. 

Some have questioned the genuineness of this sermon partly because of the apparent conflict with his later statements in the quote referred to above by Rev. Winzer and because only one extant copy include his initials "T.G." (See, "The Puritan Hope" by Iain H Murray, p. 272). Is it possible that Goodwin's views changed over time?

I'd be curious if anyone has any thoughts on this issue. Thanks.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Folks; let's let the thread get back on topic next week.


----------



## py3ak

Goodwin's exposition of Revelation was composed between 1634 and 1639, but I wasn't able to find any information on when the sermon "A Glimpse of Zion's Glory" was written.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

1641 apparently.
A glimpse of Syons glory, or, The churches beautie specified : briefly layd open in a sermon, at a generall fast day in Holland [WorldCat.org]


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> I'd be curious if anyone has any thoughts on this issue. Thanks.



The Glimpse was published in 1641 and the sermons on Ephesians were preached in the 1640s, so there is no "latter day" change of mind.

The Glimpse has been attributed to various authors. It is usual in literary criticism to argue from internal evidence when the authorship of a work is not established by external evidence. If the Glimpse proved to contradict known sentiments as expressed in the received corpus of Goodwin's writings, this could only serve to cast doubt on his authorship of the Glimpse.

But taking the work at face value, it is possible to reconcile the appearance of contradiction by simply noting what is said to be "personal" and how the author qualifies it.

First, the author states, "We will not fully determine of the manner of his personal reigning." He does not say it is a personal return, but a personal reign. He nowhere states that this "personal" reign is physical, and he consciously refuses to enter into the discussion as to the manner how Christ personally reigns on earth.

Secondly, he qualifies in what sense Christ reigns personally on earth, when he says, "it must be meant of Jesus Christ coming and reigning here gloriously for a thousand years." This accords with the view stated by Goodwin in the Ephesians sermons, which spoke of a part of heaven coming down to earth.

Thirdly, when he presents the views of the fathers, he clearly states a distinction between coming personally to reign and reigning in a glorious manner: "If they did not believe that Christ himself should come personally to reign, yet he shall with his saints reign in a glorious manner, and the church shall be so raised up in the world outwardly as to be above all the men of the world in outward glory." This harmonises with his view of the fathers as presented in the Ephesians sermons: "Christ himself shall come down—that is the old error of some — to reign at Jerusalem; which error indeed the fathers spake against."

So while the Glimpse uses the language of a personal reign, it does not speak of a personal, physical advent of Christ.

Anthony Dallison, "the Latter Day Glory in the Thought of Thomas Goodwin," puts forward this interpretation: "Goodwin expected the millennium to be inaugurated without Christ's personal return to earth, but that an undefined point during the millennium, probably towards its close, Christ himself would return to judge the world during the 'long day' of judgment, at which point it could truly be said that Christ and his saints were both on earth together."


----------



## Scott1

> Free dictionary by Farlex
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chiliasm
> 
> chiliasm
> the belief that Christ will return to earth in visible form and establish a kingdom to last 1000 years, after which the world will come to an end. Also called millenarianism. — chiliast, n. — chiliastic, adj.



What's difficult to follow here is that "chiliasm" is defined as Christ physically returning to rule and reign on earth. It doesn't appear to be merely a "glorious" reign of a realized millennium that would fit right in with amillennialism and postmillennialism.

How are we differentiating "chiliasm" from classical premillennialism?

Are we saying that neither advocated a physical reign of Christ before the judgment?


----------



## MW

Scott1 said:


> Free dictionary by Farlex



You get what you pay for.


----------



## Scott1

> Webster's 1913 Dictionary
> Chil´i`asm
> n.	1.	The millennium.
> 2.	The doctrine of the personal reign of Christ on earth during the millennium.



(There's a joke here in the States- What does Webster know, he has been dead 150 years?)


----------



## MW

Scott1 said:


> Webster's 1913 Dictionary
> 
> 2. The doctrine of the personal reign of Christ on earth during the millennium.
Click to expand...


I think this would be closer to the mark.


----------



## Smith

Thank you, Hamp, for the extended quote from Thomas Goodwin.



armourbearer said:


> First, the author states, "We will not fully determine of the manner of his personal reigning." He does not say it is a personal return, but a personal reign. He nowhere states that this "personal" reign is physical, and he consciously refuses to enter into the discussion as to the manner how Christ personally reigns on earth.
> 
> Secondly, he qualifies in what sense Christ reigns personally on earth, when he says, "it must be meant of Jesus Christ coming and reigning here gloriously for a thousand years." This accords with the view stated by Goodwin in the Ephesians sermons, which spoke of a part of heaven coming down to earth.
> 
> Thirdly, when he presents the views of the fathers, he clearly states a distinction between coming personally to reign and reigning in a glorious manner: "If they did not believe that Christ himself should come personally to reign, yet he shall with his saints reign in a glorious manner, and the church shall be so raised up in the world outwardly as to be above all the men of the world in outward glory." This harmonises with his view of the fathers as presented in the Ephesians sermons: "Christ himself shall come down—that is the old error of some — to reign at Jerusalem; which error indeed the fathers spake against."
> 
> So while the Glimpse uses the language of a personal reign, it does not speak of a personal, physical advent of Christ.



I must confess that, by my reading, the quote from Goodwin's "A Glimpse of Zion's Glory" is clearly expressing some version of historic premillennialism.

1. He says he is not fully expounding the manner of the reign. This does not mean is saying _nothing_ about it. He certainly does make some points clear, e.g., that it is on earth and not in heaven.

2. By saying the reign is glorious, he is not making a _contrast_ with a personal or earthly reign. It is a qualification, but not so as to reverse what he just said--a personal reign on earth with the saints.

3. In commenting on early fathers, Goodwin is in fact addressing the way in which those early writers might have deviated from the position he is asserting. So, he says even if they did not go this far, to assert a personal reign, yet at least they still held to some sort of actual reign with his saints, etc. So, in fact, the construction of his sentence shows that such a view among the fathers is a deviation from the view he is putting forth. In short, again, he is saying his own view is that Christ will come here to reign personally.

4. The real issue is whether there is an earthly reign of Christ (personally)--not the return/second advent. I am a bit confused by the remark that Goodwin was silent here on a personal, physical return of Christ. Is this not a fundamental tenet of the faith? Surely he believed this, yes? The debate is not over a personal, bodily return of Christ, is it?

5. Goodwin explicitly says:
a) Christ will reign "on earth, here in this world"--_before_ the great/solemn day (judgment);
b) the saints' millennial reign is not in heaven;
c) Christ comes and reigns here (vs. in heaven) gloriously for a thousand years;
d) they shall literally look upon him whom they have pierced, not merely spiritually;
e) Christ will literally drink the fruit of the vine in the kingdom;
f) we should take such passages literally, not as referring to a heavenly kingdom of the Father;
g) the Antichrist (presumed as being on earth) will be destroyed when Christ comes;
h) the saints will reign with Christ, and this implies it must be on earth, not in heaven;
i) the rising up of Gog and Magog after the millennium must be on earth, not in heaven;
j) this may seem strange (to his contemporaries), but it has at least some partial precedent in the chiliasm of the early church.


So, I would suggest that either we accept that the quoted statements are not fully consistent (perhaps a change in thinking), or maybe the former quotation needs to be looked at more closely. I personally think the latter is worth considering. After all in the place cited (Works :521), the point he calls "the old error" is that Christ himself shall come down to reign at Jerusalem. That is a more specific assertion than merely an earthly reign of any sort. Yet, "part of heaven" shall indeed come down "under him" and "rule this world". So, Christ himself will not reign from a point on earth, yet his delegates will do so, while he is in heaven. Is he referring to the millennium here?


----------



## MW

Smith said:


> 4. The real issue is whether there is an earthly reign of Christ (personally)--not the return/second advent. I am a bit confused by the remark that Goodwin was silent here on a personal, physical return of Christ. Is this not a fundamental tenet of the faith? Surely he believed this, yes? The debate is not over a personal, bodily return of Christ, is it?



Yes, it is a fundamental tenet of the faith. Premillennialism teaches that Christ physically and visibly returns to inaugurate the millennium. Goodwin taught that He returns to be with His saints after the millennium. Hence there is no grounds in Goodwin's writings for claiming that he was premillennialist.


----------



## Scott1

> Smith
> c) Christ comes and reigns here (vs. in heaven) gloriously for a thousand years;



Is there any indication anywhere Mr. Goodwin viewed the "thousand years" figuratively?

Anyone know?


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Scott1 said:


> Smith
> c) Christ comes and reigns here (vs. in heaven) gloriously for a thousand years;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any indication anywhere Mr. Goodwin viewed the "thousand years" figuratively?
> 
> Anyone know?
Click to expand...


Based on the quote above from "A Glimpse," it would seem the burden of proof would be on those who would attempt to interpret his words in a figurative manner.


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> Based on the quote above from "A Glimpse," it would seem the burden of proof would be on those who would attempt to interpret his words in a figurative manner.



His statement in the Ephesians sermons specifically refutes a physical return of Christ to inaugurate the millennium. The statement in the Glimpse nowhere avows a physical return of Christ prior to the millennium. In the absence of all other evidence the only proper conclusion to draw is that Goodwin did not teach that Christ visibly returns before the millennium, or what is today called premillennialism. I don't know too many historians who would pride themselves on following secondary sources over the clear testimony of primary sources.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the quote above from "A Glimpse," it would seem the burden of proof would be on those who would attempt to interpret his words in a figurative manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His statement in the Ephesians sermons specifically refutes a physical return of Christ to inaugurate the millennium. The statement in the Glimpse nowhere avows a physical return of Christ prior to the millennium. In the absence of all other evidence the only proper conclusion to draw is that Goodwin did not teach that Christ visibly returns before the millennium, or what is today called premillennialism. I don't know too many historians who would pride themselves on following secondary sources over the clear testimony of primary sources.
Click to expand...


If course, if each premise of your statement were valid, your conclusion would be true. Yet the language from "A Glimpse" which speaks of our Lord's "personal" "coming" "to earth" to reign for a "thousand years" would led some folks to conclude that some form of Premillennialism is assumed.


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> If course, if each premise of your statement were valid, your conclusion would be true. Yet the language from "A Glimpse" which speaks of our Lord's "personal" "coming" "to earth" to reign for a "thousand years" would led some folks to conclude that some form of Premillennialism is assumed.



Sure, if that is what premillennialism taught, but it doesn't; it teaches the visible, physical return of Christ before the millennium, which Goodwin repudiates.

The Glimpse explains what is meant by the glorious presence of Christ in thirteen points. None of them speak of a physical presence of Christ. All of them are expected by those who are today called postmillennialists or optimistic amillennialists.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> If course, if each premise of your statement were valid, your conclusion would be true. Yet the language from "A Glimpse" which speaks of our Lord's "personal" "coming" "to earth" to reign for a "thousand years" would led some folks to conclude that some form of Premillennialism is assumed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if that is what premillennialism taught, but it doesn't; it teaches the visible, physical return of Christ before the millennium, which Goodwin repudiates.
> 
> The Glimpse explains what is meant by the glorious presence of Christ in thirteen points. None of them speak of a physical presence of Christ. All of them are expected by those who are today called postmillennialists or optimistic amillennialists.
Click to expand...


Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I think it would benefit many to know that the terminology of millennialism is mostly a recent acquisition of terms that have been more defined in the past 300 years or so. So to make a postmil and amil distinction flat out is even difficult before the term amil was used (or even now the term used by them... realized or gospel age millennialism). I believe it is the same for Chiliasm and what others know to be Premillennialism. The terminiology has been tightened up quite a bit in just the past few hundred years and now we are reading back into the earlier writers our presuppositions of what is being said. When they say something concerning a 1000 year reign on earth we automatically assume a premil of Christ's physical presence here in Jerusalem when that most likely might not be the case. 

That is just like the football argument. When the soccer world speaks of football they mean soccer. But when a Yank hears football he thinks of Notre Dame and the fighting Irish.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I think it would benefit many to know that the terminology of millennialism is mostly a recent acquisition of terms that have been more defined in the past 300 years or so. So to make a postmil and amil distinction flat out is even difficult before the term amil was used (or even now the term used by them... realized or gospel age millennialism). I believe it is the same for Chiliasm and what others know to be Premillennialism. The terminiology has been tightened up quite a bit in just the past few hundred years and now we are reading back into the earlier writers our presuppositions of what is being said. When they say something concerning a 1000 year reign on earth we automatically assume a premil of Christ's physical presence here in Jerusalem when that most likely might not be the case.
> 
> That is just like the football argument. When the soccer world speaks of football they mean soccer. But when a Yank hears football he thinks of Notre Dame and the fighting Irish.



I appreciate your helpful caution at this point. The question I am working on is the appearance of contradiction between the two documents. 

Iain Murray writes of this in his book "The Puritan Hope" (p. 272): 
"There is a positiveness in 'A Glimpse' which does not harmonize with the tone of Goodwin's Ephesian sermon, and further, in the former the personal descent and reign of Christ is asserted (Works, 12,71), while in the latter it is denied." 

This quote is, of course, in the context of Murray discussing whether Goodwin was a "premillennalist." Murray had asserted that Goodwin was Premillennial earlier in the book (pp. 52-53).


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?



Obviously many premils have advocated an historical basis for their views and there is no doubt that their references to miscellaneous statements has won the general support of historians. Contextual reading of the primary sources, however, paints a different picture.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I think it would benefit many to know that the terminology of millennialism is mostly a recent acquisition of terms that have been more defined in the past 300 years or so. So to make a postmil and amil distinction flat out is even difficult before the term amil was used (or even now the term used by them... realized or gospel age millennialism). I believe it is the same for Chiliasm and what others know to be Premillennialism. The terminiology has been tightened up quite a bit in just the past few hundred years and now we are reading back into the earlier writers our presuppositions of what is being said. When they say something concerning a 1000 year reign on earth we automatically assume a premil of Christ's physical presence here in Jerusalem when that most likely might not be the case.
> 
> That is just like the football argument. When the soccer world speaks of football they mean soccer. But when a Yank hears football he thinks of Notre Dame and the fighting Irish.



Dear PuritanCovenanter, I am curious at this point. Would you consider that prior to John Nelson Darby, anyone in the history of the church could be considered, by any standard of definition one might choose to impose, a premillennnalist? Do you believe in the existence of any form of premillennialism prior to John Nelson Darby? Is premillennialism the creation of John Nelson Darby and the 19th century?


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Thank you, dear friend in Christ, I believe I have identified your answer. I appreciate your gracious tone in this matter.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Baptist-1689er said:


> Dear PuritanCovenanter, I am curious at this point. Would you consider that prior to John Nelson Darby, anyone in the history of the church could be considered, by any standard of definition one might choose to impose, a premillennnalist? Do you believe in the existence of any form of premillennialism prior to John Nelson Darby? Is premillennialism the creation of John Nelson Darby and the 19th century?



I am not sure. I think you would have to clearly establish the fact from primary sources that someone believed that Christ would show up physically present to rule the earth on a physical throne in the writings of those who have believed in a literal period of time before the last resurrection. I know of those who claimed such from Justin Martyr that have been supposedy refuted in some of the things I have read. I think I read some of that in Cox's writings. Maybe 'Amillennialism Today' or his book on Final things. It also might have been in Hoekema's 'The Bible and the Future'.


----------



## tcalbrecht

armourbearer said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously many premils have advocated an historical basis for their views and there is no doubt that their references to miscellaneous statements has won the general support of historians. Contextual reading of the primary sources, however, paints a different picture.
Click to expand...


So I decided to go back and read the sections of Justin Martyr's works that are allegedly premillennial, and I must admit I could not find the basic premil view, i.e., that Christ returns to earth and dwells in Jerusalem for 1000 years with the saints. 



> But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (_Dialogue with Trypho_, Chapter LXXX)
> 
> Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (_Dialogue with Trypho_, Chapter LXXXI)



If anyone has a quote from Justin with Christ on the earth during the 1000 years, please share it.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

tcalbrecht said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously many premils have advocated an historical basis for their views and there is no doubt that their references to miscellaneous statements has won the general support of historians. Contextual reading of the primary sources, however, paints a different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I decided to go back and read the sections of Justin Martyr's works that are allegedly premillennial, and I must admit I could not find the basic premil view, i.e., that Christ returns to earth and dwells in Jerusalem for 1000 years with the saints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (_Dialogue with Trypho_, Chapter LXXX)
> 
> Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (_Dialogue with Trypho_, Chapter LXXXI)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone has a quote from Justin with Christ on the earth during the 1000 years, please share it.
Click to expand...


Thank you.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 04:25:56 EST-----



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear PuritanCovenanter, I am curious at this point. Would you consider that prior to John Nelson Darby, anyone in the history of the church could be considered, by any standard of definition one might choose to impose, a premillennnalist? Do you believe in the existence of any form of premillennialism prior to John Nelson Darby? Is premillennialism the creation of John Nelson Darby and the 19th century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure. I think you would have to clearly establish the fact from primary sources that someone believed that Christ would show up physically present to rule the earth on a physical throne in the writings of those who have believed in a literal period of time before the last resurrection. I know of those who claimed such from Justin Martyr that have been supposedy refuted in some of the things I have read. I think I read some of that in Cox's writings. Maybe 'Amillennialism Today' or his book on Final things. It also might have been in Hoekema's 'The Bible and the Future'.
Click to expand...


Therefore, we have established, among some, at least, that the Premil position was possibly, yet not certainly, created by John Nelson Darbey. Thank you.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 04:54:03 EST-----

Therefore, if I may, Premillennialism never existed until John Nelson Darbey created it in the 19th Century. Is that correct?


----------



## Scott1

To be clear here,

Are we saying that a physical rule of Christ on earth before a 1,000 year period is a product of modern dispensational premillennialism?

And by that, are we saying none of the early Church fathers believed in a physical rule of our Lord in like manner?

Are we also then left with a lone definition of "chiliasm" as being belief in a millennium of spiritual reign by Christ (not physical) before His return?


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Scott1 said:


> To be clear here,
> 
> Are we saying that a physical rule of Christ on earth before a 1,000 year period is a product of modern dispensational premillennialism?
> 
> And by that, are we saying none of the early Church fathers believed in a physical rule of our Lord in like manner?
> 
> Are we also then left with a lone definition of "chiliasm" as being belief in a millennium of spiritual reign by Christ (not physical) before His return?



Yep, I think that is where we may be headed.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 05:57:55 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> To be clear here,
> 
> Are we saying that a physical rule of Christ on earth before a 1,000 year period is a product of modern dispensational premillennialism?
> 
> And by that, are we saying none of the early Church fathers believed in a physical rule of our Lord in like manner?
> 
> Are we also then left with a lone definition of "chiliasm" as being belief in a millennium of spiritual reign by Christ (not physical) before His return?



Unless, of course, some of our friends here would like to correct this assumption.


----------



## py3ak

Scott1 said:


> To be clear here,
> 
> Are we saying that a physical rule of Christ on earth before a 1,000 year period is a product of modern dispensational premillennialism?
> 
> And by that, are we saying none of the early Church fathers believed in a physical rule of our Lord in like manner?
> 
> Are we also then left with a lone definition of "chiliasm" as being belief in a millennium of spiritual reign by Christ (not physical) before His return?



It would be surprising if anyone were asserting that, given what has already been quoted in the thread:

Thomas Goodwin (Works 1:521):



> The third degree of this new world is this, that when this glorious time cometh, that Jesus Christ will thus call home both Jew and Gentile, and have a new world in respect of multitudes of men of all nations coming in unto him, to make this new world the more complete, he will bring part of heaven down to it. This, I say, is more controverted. I shall but express to you briefly some grounds for it, which I confess for these twenty years I have not known well how to answer, and that is all that I can say.
> 
> *It is not that Christ himself shall come down—that is the old error of some — to reign at Jerusalem; which error indeed the fathers spake against, and which hath brought a blemish and absurdity upon that opinion.* But that under Christ, reigning in heaven, — for certainly his court is there, and that is his temple, and he sitteth there both over this world and that to come, — yet that under him part of heaven shall come down and rule this world, to make the glory of it so much the more complete, to put down Adam's world, I shall give you rather those reasons.



The emphasized portion shows belief in a physical, local reign of Christ is not new: it is considered an _old_ error.


----------



## tcalbrecht

py3ak said:


> The emphasized portion shows belief in a physical, local reign of Christ is not new: it is considered an _old_ error.



Would anyone ever argue that it was a belief of the Church?


----------



## Baptist-1689er

tcalbrecht said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The emphasized portion shows belief in a physical, local reign of Christ is not new: it is considered an _old_ error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would anyone ever argue that it was a belief of the Church?
Click to expand...


Ok. Then have we established here that John Nelson Darbey created premillennialism, and that it was absent at any other time in the life of the church before him?


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> Ok. Then have we established here that John Nelson Darbey created premillennialism, and that it was absent at any other time in the life of the church before him?



Darby is associated with the rise and spread of dispensationalism.

As noted, premillennialism has historical representation amongst extremists.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then have we established here that John Nelson Darbey created premillennialism, and that it was absent at any other time in the life of the church before him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darby is associated with the rise and spread of dispensationalism.
> 
> As noted, premillennialism has historical representation amongst extremists.
Click to expand...


Well, while you may assert that premillennialism has some "historical representation" in the history of the church, and I think history is on your side at this point, I am not sure most folks here are as certain as you may be. I am still curious what an "extremist" is, according to you.


----------



## MW

Baptist-1689er said:


> I am still curious what an "extremist" is, according to you.



In the early church, Judaistic; in the middle ages, mystic; from the Reformation to the present, Anabaptistic.


----------



## py3ak

tcalbrecht said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The emphasized portion shows belief in a physical, local reign of Christ is not new: it is considered an _old_ error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would anyone ever argue that it was a belief of the Church?
Click to expand...


Well given the very broad terms (anyone, ever) it's hard to give a definitive negative. I don't think premillenialism was enshrined in any documents with constitutional authority until relatively recently, but I haven't read all constitutional documents.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

tcalbrecht said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptist-1689er said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously many premils have advocated an historical basis for their views and there is no doubt that their references to miscellaneous statements has won the general support of historians. Contextual reading of the primary sources, however, paints a different picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I decided to go back and read the sections of Justin Martyr's works that are allegedly premillennial, and I must admit I could not find the basic premil view, i.e., that Christ returns to earth and dwells in Jerusalem for 1000 years with the saints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (_Dialogue with Trypho_, Chapter LXXX)
> 
> Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (_Dialogue with Trypho_, Chapter LXXXI)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone has a quote from Justin with Christ on the earth during the 1000 years, please share it.
Click to expand...


Tom, I think the references you shared from Dialogue 80-81 have the elements one would expect from a premil position. It is true that Justin doesn't explicitly mention the Second Advent, but I think it is assumed. He does reference it earlier (Dialogue 32 & 51) and later (110 & 113). I find the following elements:

1. a resurrection from the dead, then
2. a 1000 years in Jerusalem, then
3. the general resurrection and judgment.

For the sake of argument, because he doesn't reference the Second Coming in connection with the general resurrection and judgment, should we then conclude that he didn't believe in Christ's Second Coming then? I don't think we would want to interpret his omission that way either. I think it is more reasonable to interpret his words as describing what will occur after the Second Coming, which would appear to be Premillennial in his understanding. These are just my thoughts on the references above.


----------



## MW

There was a recent thread on dispensationalism where I commented on Justin. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/any...swering-john-macarthur-here-50723/index5.html

Perhaps it would be better to discuss his opinions there so as not to take this thread off topic.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

armourbearer said:


> There was a recent thread on dispensationalism where I commented on Justin.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/any...swering-john-macarthur-here-50723/index5.html
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to discuss his opinions there so as not to take this thread off topic.



Thanks, Rev. Winzer. I wasn't aware of that thread.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Baptist-1689er said:


> For the sake of argument, because he doesn't reference the Second Coming in connection with the general resurrection and judgment, should we then conclude that he didn't believe in Christ's Second Coming then? I don't think we would want to interpret his omission that way either. I think it is more reasonable to interpret his words as describing what will occur after the Second Coming, which would appear to be Premillennial in his understanding. These are just my thoughts on the references above.



More importantly, what he does not mention is Christ on earth in Jerusalem during this thousand years. The (modern) premil Second Coming is predicated on that belief. So it is safe to say that he does not mention two key components of the premil view. 

It is quite possible to take his words to identify a spiritual resurrection and then a physical one separated by a thousand years. This make sense especially in light of the last sentence in the second section, “Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’” This description follows the clause, “and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.”

My point being that the idea of nascent premillennialism in Justin’s writing is not as clear as I first thought.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

I agree Tom. It's not as clear as I had assumed either.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Therefore I believe we have concluded that Premillennialism is at variance with the WCF, it has never been held among those who are orthodox, and anyone who might suggest that it is biblical is an "extremist."


----------



## E. Thomas Young

Hey guys, I find this discussion fascinating. I am new to Puritan Board. I am an avid reader, but not much of a computer guy. So please go easy on me  I knew the late Jim Boice personally. I never knew him to espouse the pre-trib view, even though he was certainly a Premil. Was Jerremiah Burroughs a Congregationalist? He was part of the Westminster Assembly and was Premil. Thanks, I am glad to be amongst such learned men. I think I may be out of my league though.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

E. Thomas Young said:


> Hey guys, I find this discussion fascinating. I am new to Puritan Board. I am an avid reader, but not much of a computer guy. So please go easy on me  I knew the late Jim Boice personally. I never knew him to espouse the pre-trib view, even though he was certainly a Premil. Was Jerremiah Burroughs a Congregationalist? He was part of the Westminster Assembly and was Premil. Thanks, I am glad to be amongst such learned men. I think I may be out of my league though.



Dear E. Thomas Young, If you would like to know his views, I would highly recommend his book "The Last and Future World" (Zondervan:1974). His Pre-trib, Premil views are clear in this book. Of Course, some here on this Board must conclude that he was an "extremist." I am not as learned as these dear scholars are, and I must confess before them, that I personally loved his ministry in the Word.


----------



## E. Thomas Young

Knowing Jim Boice personally. I find it a bit strange that someone would find him to be an "extremist" and therefore dismiss the ministry of such a great man of God. As Ryle stated, "The best of men are men at best." I remember R.C. Sproul saying that he felt it was God's judgment on the Church to have taken Boice off the Earth. Just a thought.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

E. Thomas Young said:


> Knowing Jim Boice personally. I find it a bit strange that someone would find him to be an "extremist" and therefore dismiss the ministry of such a great man of God. As Ryle stated, "The best of men are men at best." I remember R.C. Sproul saying that he felt it was God's judgment on the Church to have taken Boice off the Earth. Just a thought.



He was, indeed, a Great man of God! At least that is what I believe. Now the Scholars may not agree with that. I apologize.

-----Added 9/10/2009 at 05:04:39 EST-----

Therefore, I believe we have established, that Premillennialism is at variance with the WCF, there is a vital question as whether premillennialism ever even existed before the 19th Century and John Nelson Darbey, and that anyone within the Presbyterian church who has ever held to any form PremIllennialism, is upon the best authority we can present, an "extremist."


----------



## py3ak

I'm closing this thread because we appear to be spinning our tires. Let's give the topic a break, and if *after rereading the entire thread there are some unanswered questions* perhaps we can have a new thread, of a more manageable length, to discuss those subsidiary issues.

As a recapitulation, let me observe:
1. The terms of pre, post and a-millenialism are anachronistic when applied to the Westminster Assembly.
2. While some historians have maintained that there was something comparable to premillenialism at the Westminster Assembly, quotations from the primary sources suggest that they may well have overstated their case.
3. Some churches wishing to subscribe to the Westminster Standards and hold to or permit premillenialism have modified the Standards in one way or another (by revision, like the BPC, or by addendum, like the FPC).
4. Views that today we would call premillennial do have quite a long pedigree, but to a large degree this has been among extremists (that's why Thomas Goodwin calls it an "old error").
5. It is not necessary to conclude that all premillenialists are extremists: the question must be if their premillenialism drives them to deny some essential of the faith.


----------

