# Premil's departure from creeds and confessions and one logical conclusion



## YXU

Apostle's Creed:
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, *whence He shall come to judge* _*the living and the dead*_. 

The Nicene Creed:
according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and *He shall come again*, with glory, to judge _*the quick and the dead*_; whose kingdom shall have no end.

Athanasian Creed:
He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge *the quick and the dead*. *At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies*; 

Belgic Confession of Faith Chapter XXXVII:
Finally we believe, according to God's Word, that when the time appointed by the *Lord is come *(which is unknown to all creatures) and the number of the elect is complete, our Lord Jesus Christ _*will come from heaven*_, bodily and visibly, as he ascended, with great glory and majesty, to declare himself the judge of _*the living and the dead*_. He will burn this old world, in fire and flame, in order to cleanse it. Then all human creatures *will appear in person before the great judge*-- men, women, and children, who have lived from the beginning until the end of the world.

WCF Chapter XXXIII:
As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.

One thing is obvious in those creeds and confessions, there is no gap between the coming of Jesus, the judgment of all men and the resurrection of the Saints. 

The logical conclusion:
As preterism is condemned as heresy for its departure from the four ecnumenical creeds, so is premil. Premil should be treated the same as preterism if being consistent.


----------



## bookslover

YXU said:


> One thing is obvious in those creeds and confessions, there is no gap between the coming of Jesus, the judgment of all men and the resurrection of the Saints.



Merely because a doctrine is not given support in creeds and confessions doesn't automatically or necessarily make it heretical. No secondary standard can include everything the Bible teaches. Only if a doctrine is not supported _by Scripture_ is a doctrine heretical.

The historic premil position has been held since the earliest days of the church since, in the view of those who hold it, it has biblical support.


----------



## Grymir

I didn't know that preterism was heretical either?

BTW, I tend to be historic premil in case anybody was wondering.


----------



## Pergamum

YXU said:


> Apostle's Creed:
> He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, *whence He shall come to judge* _*the living and the dead*_.
> 
> The Nicene Creed:
> according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and *He shall come again*, with glory, to judge _*the quick and the dead*_; whose kingdom shall have no end.
> 
> Athanasian Creed:
> He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge *the quick and the dead*. *At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies*;
> 
> Belgic Confession of Faith Chapter XXXVII:
> Finally we believe, according to God's Word, that when the time appointed by the *Lord is come *(which is unknown to all creatures) and the number of the elect is complete, our Lord Jesus Christ _*will come from heaven*_, bodily and visibly, as he ascended, with great glory and majesty, to declare himself the judge of _*the living and the dead*_. He will burn this old world, in fire and flame, in order to cleanse it. Then all human creatures *will appear in person before the great judge*-- men, women, and children, who have lived from the beginning until the end of the world.
> 
> WCF Chapter XXXIII:
> As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.
> 
> One thing is obvious in those creeds and confessions, there is no gap between the coming of Jesus, the judgment of all men and the resurrection of the Saints.
> 
> The logical conclusion:
> As preterism is condemned as heresy for its departure from the four ecnumenical creeds, so is premil. Premil should be treated the same as preterism if being consistent.



So, you are prepared to condemn G.E. Lad to hell as a heretic for believing in historic premillenialism?


Just silly.


Look up the word heresy.


----------



## Pilgrim

Grymir said:


> I didn't know that preterism was heretical either?
> 
> BTW, I tend to be historic premil in case anybody was wondering.



Full (not partial) preterism is clearly heretical.


----------



## YXU

So, you are prepared to condemn G.E. Lad to hell as a heretic for believing in historic premillenialism?


Just silly.


Look up the word heresy.[/QUOTE]

No, I wouldn't condemn anyone going to hell because of premillenialism. The argument is that preterism being condemned as heresy due to departure of the ecumenical creeds, so should it be for premil to be consistent. 

BTW, I am not a preterist.


----------



## Grymir

Even Dispensationalists don't depart from the historic creeds. At least they don't deny them, and most affirm them.

Now, all dispensationalist are premil, but not all premill are dispensationalists.

I'm trying to figure out how preterists are heretics because the depart from the early creads. Heretics is the key word. Views on the book revelation don't a heretic make. Of course, Sproul is the preterist that I'm familiar with. And premill was a view when the creeds were written. So a good question would be how are full preterists heretics and how is that the same/how would that apply to premill?


----------



## JohnGill

Grymir said:


> Even Dispensationalists don't depart from the historic creeds. At least they don't deny them, and most affirm them.
> 
> Now, all dispensationalist are premil, but not all premill are dispensationalists.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how preterists are heretics because the depart from the early creads. Heretics is the key word. Views on the book revelation don't a heretic make. Of course, Sproul is the preterist that I'm familiar with. And premill was a view when the creeds were written. So a good question would be how are full preterists heretics and how is that the same/how would that apply to premill?



From wikipedia:



> Full Preterism
> 
> Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that Full Preterists believe all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia. Full Preterism is also known by several other names: Consistent Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Hyper-Preterism (a term used by some opponents of the Full Preterist position and considered to be derogatory by Full Preterists), and Pantelism (the term "Pantelism" comes from the Greek and means, "all things having been accomplished"). Full Preterism holds that Jesus' Second Coming is to be viewed not as a future-to-us bodily return, but rather a "return" in glory manifested by the physical destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in AD 70 by foreign armies in a manner similar to various Old Testament descriptions of God coming to destroy other nations in righteous judgment. Full Preterism also holds that the Resurrection of the dead did not entail the raising of the physical body, but rather the resurrection of the soul from the "place of the dead", known as Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek). As such, the righteous dead obtained a spiritual and substantial body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead were cast into the Lake of Fire. Some Full Preterists believe this judgment is ongoing and takes effect upon the death of each individual (Heb. 9:27).[citation needed] The New Heavens and the New Earth are also equated with the New Covenant and the fulfillment of the Law in AD 70 and are to be viewed in the same manner by which a Christian is considered a "new creation" upon his or her conversion.
> Full Preterists typically reject the authority of the Creeds to condemn their view, stating that the Creeds were written by uninspired and fallible men, and that appeals should be made instead to the Scriptures themselves (sola scriptura).



If the only argument for condemning full preterism is because they differ from the creeds, then that argument can be used to condemn as heresy any group (i.e. premills) that departs from the creeds. Scripture itself condemns full preterism, not just the creeds. (2 Tim 2:14-18)


----------



## YXU

Grymir said:


> Even Dispensationalists don't depart from the historic creeds. At least they don't deny them, and most affirm them.
> 
> Now, all dispensationalist are premil, but not all premill are dispensationalists.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how preterists are heretics because the depart from the early creads. Heretics is the key word. Views on the book revelation don't a heretic make. Of course, Sproul is the preterist that I'm familiar with. And premill was a view when the creeds were written. So a good question would be how are full preterists heretics and how is that the same/how would that apply to premill?



The creeds affirm the last judgment, the resurrection are events right after the second coming of Christ. Premil has a gap between the coming of Christ and the last judgment, as well as two resurrections. Apostle's creed and Nicene creed state this implicitly. But Athanatian creed states this explicitly, by no means can a premil accept the creed.

Preterism denies the bodily coming of Christ and the bodily resurrection, thus departs from the ecumenical creeds and is condemned as heresy because of that.


----------



## DMcFadden

Hey YX,

I'm a little slow on the uptake on a Sunday afternoon. But, I don't see the problem. Premils would have no more difficulty with the ecumenical creeds than they do with the NT. And, the fact that both premil and what we now know as amil views were present in the early church makes it highly unlikely that anyone would have seen it as "heretical." (BTW I used to be historic premil but now identify myself more with the amil camp).

Are you trying to fight the issue of eschatology or merely using it as your foil for pointing out the inadequacy of using the creeds? I was not sure what direction you were moving in your post.


----------



## historyb

YXU said:


> Preterism denies the bodily coming of Christ and the bodily resurrection, thus departs from the ecumenical creeds and is condemned as heresy because of that.



Hyper or Full Preterism does, not Partial Preterism of which I am one.


----------



## YXU

DMcFadden said:


> Hey YX,
> 
> I'm a little slow on the uptake on a Sunday afternoon. But, I don't see the problem. Premils would have no more difficulty with the ecumenical creeds than they do with the NT. And, the fact that both premil and what we now know as amil views were present in the early church makes it highly unlikely that anyone would have seen it as "heretical." (BTW I used to be historic premil but now identify myself more with the amil camp).
> 
> Are you trying to fight the issue of eschatology or merely using it as your foil for pointing out the inadequacy of using the creeds? I was not sure what direction you were moving in your post.



No, this post is not to fight with historical premil view, I am just trying to raise the issue of the usage of the creeds by which preterism is condemned, thus inconsistency exists. I think nobody would call historical premil as heresy and so am I.


----------



## Scott1

This paper collects some well-know Reformed (Confessional) theologians commenting in the vein that a (classical) premillennial view is at least possible.

http://www.goldcountrybaptist.org/home/1477/1477/docs/ISRAEL - THEOLOGIAN QUOTES.doc?sec_id=1477

My understanding is that Jeremiah Burroughs, convener of the Westminster Divines, held a (classical) premillennial view.

I'm not advocating a millennial view of eschatology here nor that it has been the majority report, only that Reformed, confessional theologians have held three millennial views.


----------



## fredtgreco

YX,

You are missing the point. It is not that a doctrine is contained in the creed, but it is what _type_ of error is held. So for example, we can say that to be opposed to infant baptism is contrary to the Westminster Confession, for example. But that does not make a credobaptist a heretic. On the other hand, one could take a different view of baptism, such as baptismal salvation or a complete rejection of baptism, and that would be a far more serious matter.

I'm sorry, but this whole thread is unhelpful. To equate a difference (even with the creeds) on the timing of the final resurrection with an outright _rejection_ of the resurrection is ludicrous. Full preterism is heresy, both because it contradicts the creeds, and the clear teaching of Scripture.

I will ask you directly, and I will report the thread and ask the Administrators to wait for a response:

*Are you a full preterist? Is that why you started this thread, to gain a foothold for full preterism?*


----------



## YXU

fredtgreco said:


> YX,
> 
> You are missing the point. It is not that a doctrine is contained in the creed, but it is what _type_ of error is held. So for example, we can say that to be opposed to infant baptism is contrary to the Westminster Confession, for example. But that does not make a credobaptist a heretic. On the other hand, one could take a different view of baptism, such as baptismal salvation or a complete rejection of baptism, and that would be a far more serious matter.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this whole thread is unhelpful. To equate a difference (even with the creeds) on the timing of the final resurrection with an outright _rejection_ of the resurrection is ludicrous. Full preterism is heresy, both because it contradicts the creeds, and the clear teaching of Scripture.
> 
> I will ask you directly, and I will report the thread and ask the Administrators to wait for a response:
> 
> *Are you a full preterist? Is that why you started this thread, to gain a foothold for full preterism?*



No, I am not a full preterist and I am not condeming classical premil as heresy either. Just to raise the issue of its departure to the *ecumenical creeds*. 

But anyway, I don't think conviction of full preterism means a man is lost. I don't dare to say that. 

Thank you


----------



## MW

"Heresy" doesn't pertain to the nature of the doctrine so much as the divisive method used to propagate it; it does not therefore necessarily depart from the fundamentals of the faith. Premillennialism departs from the Westminster Confession, and in so far as it is propagated with stubbornness and zeal may be called a "heresy."


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> "Heresy" doesn't pertain to the nature of the doctrine so much as the divisive method used to propagate it; it does not therefore necessarily depart from the fundamentals of the faith. Premillennialism departs from the Westminster Confession, and in so far as it is propagated with stubbornness and zeal may be called a "heresy."



So, if I "propagate" the doctrine of substitutionary atonement "with stubbornness and zeal" that doctrine can be called a heresy? Please...

Yes, heresy DOES pertain to the nature of the doctrine. It's the content of the false doctrine that makes it heretical, not the methods or the tone with which it is propagated. If I were to say that God is three persons, that content makes it heretical - even if I propagate it with nothing but sweetness and light!

You're condemning the sizzle when you should be condemning the (false) steak.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> So, if I "propagate" the doctrine of substitutionary atonement "with stubbornness and zeal" that doctrine can be called a heresy? Please...



Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.


----------



## kalawine

Pilgrim said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that preterism was heretical either?
> 
> BTW, I tend to be historic premil in case anybody was wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full (not partial) preterism is clearly heretical.
Click to expand...


It is true


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I "propagate" the doctrine of substitutionary atonement "with stubbornness and zeal" that doctrine can be called a heresy? Please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.
Click to expand...


Yes, but, just going by what you stated in your post, the doctrine could be considered heretical based on the "stubbornness" or "zeal" with which it is promoted.

You're usually a wise soul, Matthew, but that post of yours has really got me scratching my head.


----------



## MW

Sorry Richard; in the context of the discussion I assumed "erroneous" doctrine was at issue. Hope that clarifies.



bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I "propagate" the doctrine of substitutionary atonement "with stubbornness and zeal" that doctrine can be called a heresy? Please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but, just going by what you stated in your post, the doctrine could be considered heretical based on the "stubbornness" or "zeal" with which it is promoted.
> 
> You're usually a wise soul, Matthew, but that post of yours has really got me scratching my head.
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Sorry Richard; in the context of the discussion I assumed "erroneous" doctrine was at issue. Hope that clarifies.
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but, just going by what you stated in your post, the doctrine could be considered heretical based on the "stubbornness" or "zeal" with which it is promoted.
> 
> You're usually a wise soul, Matthew, but that post of yours has really got me scratching my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I knew what you meant, and agree. Paul lists 'heresies' as a lust of the flesh in Gal 5:20. Error, in and of itself, is not a lust, divisiveness is.


----------



## DMcFadden

armourbearer said:


> "Heresy" doesn't pertain to the nature of the doctrine so much as the divisive method used to propagate it; it does not therefore necessarily depart from the fundamentals of the faith. Premillennialism departs from the Westminster Confession, and in so far as it is propagated with stubbornness and zeal may be called a "heresy."





> Because dispensationalism has brought premillennialism into disrepute in some quarters, there is renewed interest in a third view, amillennialism. This is the simple view that there is no millennium at all. Christ just comes and heaven ensues. The amillennialists claim that the Westminster Confession favors them, though one researcher asserts that the Westminster divines were postmillenarians. The Confession itself asserts neither the postmillennial or premillennial view. Nor does it assert amillennialism. In the Larger Catechism there are phrases about a general resurrection that do not favor premillennialism. But whether the authors of the Confession individually accepted one view or another, they refrained in the Confession from either asserting or denying a future millennium.
> 
> The Reformers were in general opposed to premillennialism. Just as in the early church some people interpreted Christ's death as the payment of a ransom to the devil, and so, illogically, brought the idea of ransom itself into disfavor with later liberal theologians; so too the extravagances of the chiliasts or millenarians in early Protestant times brought the premillennial idea into disfavor. The Westminster divines, however, were wise in avoiding a choice among these views: the subject was not ready, nor is it yet ready, for creedal determination. Loraine Boettner, whose book The Millennium is one fourth a defense of postmillenarianism and two thirds an attack against premillenarianism, makes a notable statement on page one, which ought to be reaffirmed by advocates of all three views:
> 
> "Each of the systems is therefore consistently evangelical, and each has been held by many able and sincere men. The differences arise, not because of any conscious or intended disloyalty to Scripture,"
> 
> but, may I add, because there are disagreements in exegesis.



"Christ's Return and the Westminster Confession of Faith," Gordon H. Clark


----------



## Pergamum

The PB is made up of halfly of heretics then because almost all the paedos/credos defend their doctrine with aggressiveness.


----------



## Grymir

Isn't heresy defined as false teaching that can lead a person astray, ie, teachings that will not truly save a person?


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> "Each of the systems is therefore consistently evangelical, and each has been held by many able and sincere men. The differences arise, not because of any conscious or intended disloyalty to Scripture," but, may I add, because there are disagreements in exegesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Christ's Return and the Westminster Confession of Faith," Gordon H. Clark
Click to expand...


Dennis, that is true as far as mere theological opinion goes; but add to it the circumstances of 2 Thess. 2:2, of souls being agitated by the teaching "that the day of Christ is at hand," and perhaps being divided so as to form new groups, as church history records, and I believe you have a heresy and not merely an error.


----------



## MW

Grymir said:


> Isn't heresy defined as false teaching that can lead a person astray, ie, teachings that will not truly save a person?



That would be a damnable heresy which denies the Lord.


----------



## Grymir

armourbearer said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't heresy defined as false teaching that can lead a person astray, ie, teachings that will not truly save a person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a damnable heresy which denies the Lord.
Click to expand...


hmm, I alway thought that was redundant to say damnable heresy. So what would be a good definition of heresy then? I ask this to help clarify what I say in this thread. If they are not the same, maybe I could throw around the word heretic then more than I do? (esp. concerning Karl Barth?)


----------



## MW

Grymir said:


> hmm, I alway thought that was redundant to say damnable heresy. So what would be a good definition of heresy then? I ask this to help clarify what I say in this thread. If they are not the same, maybe I could throw around the word heretic then more than I do? (esp. concerning Karl Barth?)



James Durham (Concerning Scandal, 225): "Heresy is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavour to propagate the same."

William Perkins (Galatians, 382): "there are three things in heresy, _an errour_, in the maine doctrine, _conviction_ of the party touching his errour, and _obstinacy_ after conviction."


----------



## DMcFadden

armourbearer said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Each of the systems is therefore consistently evangelical, and each has been held by many able and sincere men. The differences arise, not because of any conscious or intended disloyalty to Scripture," but, may I add, because there are disagreements in exegesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Christ's Return and the Westminster Confession of Faith," Gordon H. Clark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dennis, that is true as far as mere theological opinion goes; but add to it the circumstances of 2 Thess. 2:2, of souls being agitated by the teaching "that the day of Christ is at hand," and perhaps being divided so as to form new groups, as church history records, and I believe you have a heresy and not merely an error.
Click to expand...


Matthew, 

You addressed Clark's ecclesiastical "bottom line." I was wondering what you made of his historical judgment:



> The amillennialists claim that the Westminster Confession favors them, though one researcher asserts that the Westminster divines were postmillenarians. The Confession itself asserts neither the postmillennial or premillennial view. *Nor does it assert amillennialism*. In the Larger Catechism there are phrases about a general resurrection that do not favor premillennialism. *But whether the authors of the Confession individually accepted one view or another, they refrained in the Confession from either asserting or denying a future millennium*.


----------



## Grymir

Thanks Rev. Winzer - I was using Cairns def - "A deliberate departure from Christian orthodoxy, together with acceptance of error." and Baker's Dictionary of Theology's def - "not merely opinion, but false teaching which leads people away from God's revelation." I guess I assumed this had mainly to do with soteriology. But from what it seems people are saying, it can include other doctrine.

(hmm, can I say that Barth is a heretic then because of his views of scripture? I know that question is off-topic, but it's both instructional and personal (can we say V is for Vendetta?)


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> I was wondering what you made of his historical judgment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amillennialists claim that the Westminster Confession favors them, though one researcher asserts that the Westminster divines were postmillenarians. The Confession itself asserts neither the postmillennial or premillennial view. *Nor does it assert amillennialism*. In the Larger Catechism there are phrases about a general resurrection that do not favor premillennialism. *But whether the authors of the Confession individually accepted one view or another, they refrained in the Confession from either asserting or denying a future millennium*.
Click to expand...


WCF 8:4, "and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world." This is explicitly anti-chiliast. Larger Catechism answer 88 ties the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the final judgment as one continuous series of events. This leads me to regard Gordon Clark's analysis as faulty.


----------



## YXU

bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I "propagate" the doctrine of substitutionary atonement "with stubbornness and zeal" that doctrine can be called a heresy? Please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but, just going by what you stated in your post, the doctrine could be considered heretical based on the "stubbornness" or "zeal" with which it is promoted.
> 
> You're usually a wise soul, Matthew, but that post of yours has really got me scratching my head.
Click to expand...


I think a erronous doctrine tied with stubborness or zeal is what has been mentioned. Not a biblical doctrine. Such thing no only cause division and unneccessary separation with others, and is a warmbed for a proud and self-righteousness spirit. Just like the pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensational label of some people which separates themselves thereof and are proud about being orthodox while others are in deadly errors.


----------



## YXU

Grymir said:


> Thanks Rev. Winzer - I was using Cairns def - "A deliberate departure from Christian orthodoxy, together with acceptance of error." and Baker's Dictionary of Theology's def - "not merely opinion, but false teaching which leads people away from God's revelation." I guess I assumed this had mainly to do with soteriology. But from what it seems people are saying, it can include other doctrine.
> 
> (hmm, can I say that Barth is a heretic then because of his views of scripture? I know that question is off-topic, but it's both instructional and personal (can we say V is for Vendetta?)



This definition has some problem, basically Christian orthodoxy is defined in creeds especiall the ecumenical creeds, but the premil position departs from both the ecumenical creeds and the reformed creeds as well. Dr. Cairns's definition puts premil view as a heresy which are held by many including himself. Which I believe does not go that far as to become a heresy.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I think if YXU's opening post had been posed as a question rather than a shot across the bow, it would have led us down a different path. I take his OP to be saying that the noted creeds seem to specifically deny premillennialism to the same extent that they specifically deny full preterism -- his bolding marking his points.

So, the question is, Can premillennialism be reconciled with the wording of the creeds? If so, how?

P.S. I speak as one who left dispensationalism a number of years ago, has been historic premill (by default) since then, but who is in the midst of potentially moving wholly into the Amill camp.

P.P.S There's no more ardent anti-dispie than a former dispie.


----------



## py3ak

bookslover said:


> If I were to say that God is three persons, that content makes it heretical - even if I propagate it with nothing but sweetness and light!



Is this what you meant to say?


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> The PB is made up of halfly of heretics then because almost all the paedos/credos defend their doctrine with aggressiveness.



We defend our doctrine with aggressiveness on PB, but we don't go to each others churches and try to stir the pot.


----------



## bookslover

py3ak said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were to say that God is three persons, that content makes it heretical - even if I propagate it with nothing but sweetness and light!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you meant to say?
Click to expand...


Uh, no, actually. [Insert sheepish grin here.] That content is definitely not heretical! Good catch. I'm surprised that no one else caught it.

I think I definitely need something stronger than a 60-watt bulb in my brain...


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Sorry Richard; in the context of the discussion I assumed "erroneous" doctrine was at issue. Hope that clarifies.



Yes, that clarifies. As usual, context is everything. Thanks, Matthew.


----------



## bookslover

Gomarus said:


> So, the question is, Can premillennialism be reconciled with the wording of the creeds? If so, how?



Well, the historic premil position doesn't need to be reconciled to the wording of the creeds. Historic premils believe that the position can be defended from Scripture (as it has been since the early days of the church).

It's not in the creeds because most of the creed writers were not premil - even though, in the case of the Westminster Assembly, William Twisse, one of the prolocutors (moderators) was! He must have been out having a sandwich and a beer when they were voting on eschatological matters...


----------



## bookslover

Since the amil position seems to be the overwhelming position in the Reformed world, a good question for amils might be:

Are you amil because:

1. You thoroughly investigated that position and are convinced that it's biblical, or, 

2. When thinking about eschatology, you noticed that most Reformed folks are amil, so you figured you'd be amil too, so as not to rock the boat and because, what the heck, it's the majority position, and I don't wanna look weird, so...

I'm being slightly mischevious here...


----------



## TheocraticKingdom31

As a young christian still learning, a lot of this is still a bit over my head. I will say this though, I am involved in evangelism and find many who know about premill (I am premill) but don't know the gospel. I personally know pastors in my town that talk of the end times but don't truly know what repentance is. We must keep that in mind. According to Barna 67% of christians think being good will get them to heaven. That same 67% could probably tell you how many LaHaye books there were.


----------



## YXU

bookslover said:


> Since the amil position seems to be the overwhelming position in the Reformed world, a good question for amils might be:
> 
> Are you amil because:
> 
> 1. You thoroughly investigated that position and are convinced that it's biblical, or,
> 
> 2. When thinking about eschatology, you noticed that most Reformed folks are amil, so you figured you'd be amil too, so as not to rock the boat and because, what the heck, it's the majority position, and I don't wanna look weird, so...
> 
> I'm being slightly mischevious here...



1. I hold my eschatological view based solely on the conviction of the Bible. 
2. Sometimes the reformers do influence me, but I am not basing my conviction on them but on Bible, they are helping me to understand and think thoroughly about the Bible. 

BTW, I am postmil, not amil. 

I investigated this issue for certain depth, I still cannot figure out how classical premil reconcile the following:
1. resurrection and the judgment which comes directly after the coming of the Lord as a clear Biblical teaching instead of a gap for 1000 years;
2. Death being totally swollowed up by victory at His second coming instead of still physical death in the 1000 years;
3. The nature of the 1000 years' Kingdom, and its difference between the eternal heaven which has no end;
4. The final conflict between the earthly rebellion and Christ in His glory as well as the saints with resurrected bodies, the possibility of the flesh to rebel against the saint and Christ in glory;
5. What prophecies are fulfilled regarding the 1000 years' kingdom;
6. On what hermenutics shall 1000 years be treated literally as well as the consistency of this treatment. 

Regards,
Xu


----------



## Herald

bookslover said:


> I'm being slightly mischevious here...



When are you never?


----------



## Pilgrim

I still can't see the point of this thread. At first glance I thought it was yet another former Dispensational trying to play the hard role and show how Reformed he is now. (If he's trying to say premil is just as heretical as full preterism then I say this is likely the case.) Then I wondered if he might be setting up for a defense of full preterism. But he denies this. To my knowledge no one denounces full preterism as a heresy simply due to it contradicting the creeds.


----------



## YXU

Pilgrim said:


> I still can't see the point of this thread. At first glance I thought it was yet another former Dispensational trying to play the hard role and show how Reformed he is now. (If he's trying to say premil is just as heretical as full preterism then I say this is likely the case.) Then I wondered if he might be setting up for a defense of full preterism. But he denies this. To my knowledge no one denounces full preterism as a heresy simply due to it contradicting the creeds.



Several weeks ago, someone at church mentioned to everyone that premil departed from the WCF implicitly, and it reminded me of premil's departure to the ecumenical creeds and the Belgic Confession of Faith as well. This issue was raised, but nobody has any clue on this. 

Anyway, then I thinked about preterism and people who hold preterism. I raised this post. Basically, that is it.


----------



## DMcFadden

bookslover said:


> Since the amil position seems to be the overwhelming position in the Reformed world, a good question for amils might be:
> 
> Are you amil because:
> 
> 1. You thoroughly investigated that position and are convinced that it's biblical, or,
> 
> 2. When thinking about eschatology, you noticed that most Reformed folks are amil, so you figured you'd be amil too, so as not to rock the boat and because, what the heck, it's the majority position, and I don't wanna look weird, so...
> 
> I'm being *slightly mischevious *here...



Richard, you little devil you! 

I began attending a Baptist church at age 2. My first pastor was historic premill, followed by one who was amill. During high school, my youth group was VERY influenced by dispensational teaching (we even went to hear R.B. Thieme, Hal Lindsay, and a (then) almost young guy named Tim LaHaye!).

Reading George Ladd during high school convinced me of the historic premill view. This was only strengthened by having Bob Gundry (the other Mr. Posttrib) for 32 units in college. Seminary (under Ladd) set me on a lifelong course as an historic premill.

After my group pullled out of the ABC, it threw me into an existential crisis wondering how many of my views were really firmly founded and how many were merely accepted because that is what most of my evangelical tribe believed. In the process of re-examining eschatology, Kim Riddlebarger's MP3 series (actually a couple of them) and his books pretty much dismantled my historic premill views.

Actually, the hermeneutical stumbling block is at the point of the dispi divide. Once you abandon the dispensational hermeneutic, moving between the eschatological positions becomes much more fluid. When I was in school, they told us that NOBODY believed in the postmill view after WWI. Obviously, judging by its renewed popularity among some Reformed, that has changed significantly in the last 35 years! 

So, at this point, I've been Riddlebargered into the amill view.


----------



## Grymir

DMcFadden said:


> So, at this point, I've been Riddlebargered into the amill view.





Beats being Barthed I guess.


----------



## BaptisticFire2007

YXU said:


> Dr. Cairns's definition puts premil view as a heresy which are held by many including himself. Which I believe does not go that far as to become a heresy.



If by Dr. Cairn's definition, premillenialism (to which I am an adherent) is a heresy, why then does he endorse the ministry of Michael Barrett (a self-professed historic premillenialist), who teaches at the seminary affliated to Dr. Cairn's denomination and even spoke at the Free Presbyterian International Congress, the world conference of the same denomination. Surely Dr. Alan Cairns know heresy when he sees it?


----------



## Wannabee

armourbearer said:


> WCF 8:4, "and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world." This is explicitly anti-chiliast. Larger Catechism answer 88 ties the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the final judgment as one continuous series of events. This leads me to regard Gordon Clark's analysis as faulty.



This really doesn't affect premillennialism a bit. Consecutive events do not dictate a time frame, only an order. This is part of what's wrong with the OP. It assumes that the time frame is set according to man's understanding. However, if such was the case, then Jesus could not have quoted half of the prophesy of Isaiah 61:1-3 (Luke 4:18-19). As my amil brethren are apt to note, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day with the Lord. We cannot dicate time frames. We can only submit to them. And where consecutive order is dictated we must submit to it, without imposing our preconceived notions of the time element involved. In both the WCF and the creeds in the OP there are no mentions of the time involved. Many things can take place between sequential events, regardless of whether we understand how this will take place or not.


YXU said:


> I investigated this issue for certain depth, I still cannot figure out how classical premil reconcile the following:
> 1. resurrection and the judgment which comes directly after the coming of the Lord as a clear Biblical teaching instead of a gap for 1000 years;
> 2. Death being totally swollowed up by victory at His second coming instead of still physical death in the 1000 years;
> 3. The nature of the 1000 years' Kingdom, and its difference between the eternal heaven which has no end;
> 4. The final conflict between the earthly rebellion and Christ in His glory as well as the saints with resurrected bodies, the possibility of the flesh to rebel against the saint and Christ in glory;
> 5. What prophecies are fulfilled regarding the 1000 years' kingdom;
> 6. On what hermenutics shall 1000 years be treated literally as well as the consistency of this treatment.


1 - There are many reasons to hold to a literal 1000 year kingdom. They've been hashed out on this board many times and can be found with a simple search. Again, as to time frame, that's God's domain, so it's back to our exegesis of the millennial passages.
2 - I don't understand the relevance. Death is swallowed up by victory in Christ. It's not a time element. Although death will apparently be banished in the eternal state.
3 - Again, this has been hashed out to a great degree. The millennial reign is decidedly different than the eternal state. In the end, man's depravity is that much more clearly exposed as he rebels, even when the government and social order of the world are theocratic. That's a bit simplistic, and limited. But there are plenty of resources to understand this more clearly.
4 - I don't understand the issue here...
5 - Look up "One thousand years" in your concordance or Bible search software. Then look up the cross references in your Bible. Also, use the NTSK for cross references. That should pretty much exhaust the references.
6 - Much of this has to do with the use of the article in the millennial passage. Again, this has been hashed out here. 

Much of the problem with understanding premillennialism is the negative influence dispensationalism has had on it. The sensationalization of eschatology has made many think that premillennialism equals such nonsense. It does not. To go even further, such marketing of eschatology does not even represent all of dispensationalism. There is much to be learned in regard to both by reading more broadly than the likes of the authors on the NYT best selling list.

Full preterism is a heresy for many reasons, but mainly because it denies a future second coming, destroying the hope of the church of Jesus Christ. He promised He will return for her, and return He will. Premillennialism fosters hope, as does amil.


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> This really doesn't affect premillennialism a bit. Consecutive events do not dictate a time frame, only an order. This is part of what's wrong with the OP. It assumes that the time frame is set according to man's understanding. However, if such was the case, then Jesus could not have quoted half of the prophesy of Isaiah 61:1-3 (Luke 4:18-19). As my amil brethren are apt to note, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day with the Lord. We cannot dicate time frames. We can only submit to them. And where consecutive order is dictated we must submit to it, without imposing our preconceived notions of the time element involved. In both the WCF and the creeds in the OP there are no mentions of the time involved. Many things can take place between sequential events, regardless of whether we understand how this will take place or not.



Reference to a time frame is a red herring as my statement was only concered with the order of events. According to the Catechism the coming of the Lord brings the resurrection and final judgment. To posit a second coming which is followed by interim events prior to the final judgment is to create a different series of events.


----------



## Wannabee

Actually, it's not a red herring. That's failing to address the issue correctly. And the portion of the WCF you quoted only mentions events. However, you did address my mistake well. I didn't take the time to revisit question 88 of the larger confession, which clearly states "immediately," and ties the second coming with the resurrection of the just and unjust. 
With this in consideration, it is clear that there would have to be two resurrections in the premil scenario, which doesn't fit this stated order of things. I suppose one could hold to premil without a premil rapture, but I don't see the point. And this definitely wouldn't fit with the premil understanding of the Thessalonian treatment of the second coming. Hmmm, interesting.
Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## YXU

BaptisticFire2007 said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Cairns's definition puts premil view as a heresy which are held by many including himself. Which I believe does not go that far as to become a heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by Dr. Cairn's definition, premillenialism (to which I am an adherent) is a heresy, why then does he endorse the ministry of Michael Barrett (a self-professed historic premillenialist), who teaches at the seminary affliated to Dr. Cairn's denomination and even spoke at the Free Presbyterian International Congress, the world conference of the same denomination. Surely Dr. Alan Cairns know heresy when he sees it?
Click to expand...


Surely, Premillenialism is not a heresy, but it departs from the ecumenical creeds which are used to set up Christian orthodoxy in certain degree. Dr. Cairns's definition of heresy includes Christian orthodoxy, but what is orthodoxy or which orthodoxy, basically, orthodoxy is defined in the four ecumenical creeds. So, according to this definition, premillenialism is probable to become a heresy. Basically all the departures from the ecumenical creeds are definitely heresies, but premillenialism to me is an exception, as well as full preterism. 

P.S. On heresy, I think there is only one that is antinomianism.


----------



## YXU

1 - There are many reasons to hold to a literal 1000 year kingdom. They've been hashed out on this board many times and can be found with a simple search. Again, as to time frame, that's God's domain, so it's back to our exegesis of the millennial passages.
2 - I don't understand the relevance. Death is swallowed up by victory in Christ. It's not a time element. Although death will apparently be banished in the eternal state.
3 - Again, this has been hashed out to a great degree. The millennial reign is decidedly different than the eternal state. In the end, man's depravity is that much more clearly exposed as he rebels, even when the government and social order of the world are theocratic. That's a bit simplistic, and limited. But there are plenty of resources to understand this more clearly.
4 - I don't understand the issue here...
5 - Look up "One thousand years" in your concordance or Bible search software. Then look up the cross references in your Bible. Also, use the NTSK for cross references. That should pretty much exhaust the references.
6 - Much of this has to do with the use of the article in the millennial passage. Again, this has been hashed out here. 

Regarding No.2, there will be no death after Christ's coming, how can this be reconciled to the physical death of people in the 1000 years kingdom.
Regarding No. 3 our Christ in His glory is not approachable by flesh, His glory will destroy all which are of flesh. The wicked cannot live with him in the 1000 year kingdom with their carnal bodies, it is not possible.
Regarding No. 4 the battle between carnal bodies and Christ as well as His saints in glory is impossible.
Regarding No. 6 how is the inconsistency in applying such interpretation be reconciled?

Regards,

Xu


----------



## fredtgreco

YXU said:


> P.S. On heresy, I think there is only one that is antinomianism.



You would be wrong, and Church History would prove that factually. In fact, history recounted in Scripture proves that wrong. The book of Galatians has a couple things to say about heresy. So does Philippians.


----------



## YXU

Wannabee said:


> Actually, it's not a red herring. That's failing to address the issue correctly. And the portion of the WCF you quoted only mentions events. However, you did address my mistake well. I didn't take the time to revisit question 88 of the larger confession, which clearly states "immediately," and ties the second coming with the resurrection of the just and unjust.
> With this in consideration, it is clear that there would have to be two resurrections in the premil scenario, which doesn't fit this stated order of things. I suppose one could hold to premil without a premil rapture, but I don't see the point. And this definitely wouldn't fit with the premil understanding of the Thessalonian treatment of the second coming. Hmmm, interesting.
> Thanks for the clarification.



According to premil, only the first resurrection happens immediately after His coming, and then the second ressurection and the final judgment will happen after the 1000 years. 

The timing issue is a big problem! Because by this 1000 years, resurrected saints in glory and Christ in His glory will dwell with those carnal flesh and evil for 1000 years, and in the end, the carnal flesh will even raise a rebellion against our Christ in His glory. 

When John was eating with Christ, he was in His bossom, when He saw our Christ in glory, he fell to the ground like a dead man!


----------



## YXU

fredtgreco said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. On heresy, I think there is only one that is antinomianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would be wrong, and Church History would prove that factually. In fact, history recounted in Scripture proves that wrong. The book of Galatians has a couple things to say about heresy. So does Philippians.
Click to expand...


This is the definition of Rabbi Duncan. The base of all heresies is basically antinomianism that is lawlessness.


----------



## Pergamum

YXU:

Here is an interesting link I just found: Bible.org: The Phantom Heresyid the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm?


Did the Council of Ephesus in 431 condemn Chiliasm as heresy?


----------



## fredtgreco

YXU said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. On heresy, I think there is only one that is antinomianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would be wrong, and Church History would prove that factually. In fact, history recounted in Scripture proves that wrong. The book of Galatians has a couple things to say about heresy. So does Philippians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the definition of Rabbi Duncan. The base of all heresies is basically antinomianism that is lawlessness.
Click to expand...


But that is like saying all heresy is godlessness. We are not talking about the "base" of heresy - and by the way, that is not what you said, you said "only one" - we are talking about what is a heresy.


----------



## YXU

fredtgreco said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be wrong, and Church History would prove that factually. In fact, history recounted in Scripture proves that wrong. The book of Galatians has a couple things to say about heresy. So does Philippians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the definition of Rabbi Duncan. The base of all heresies is basically antinomianism that is lawlessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is like saying all heresy is godlessness. We are not talking about the "base" of heresy - and by the way, that is not what you said, you said "only one" - we are talking about what is a heresy.
Click to expand...


Pastor. Greco,

List heresies in detail is not easy, due to my limited knowledge a heresy damages the soul and leads to probable destruction it could be either problems with knowledge or with the Christian life, here is my personal belief, please critisize me is I am wrong:

1. Those who trust in their heart salvation is the work of Jesus Christ plus others (good works or his own choice) will go to hell. Many Armians are not consistent, but true and consistent Armians go to hell.
2. Antinomians (either the classical hyper-Calvinist antinomians or some schools of the modern day dispensationalists who deny the ten commandments and introduce their own law)
3. Those who deny the essential natures of God.

I have had difficulties for a long time for I personally think dispensationlism is herey (deny the nature of the convenant of God, Armianism, re-introduction to the sacrificial system which is condemned by the Bible, antinomianism and so forth), but I am sure there are a lot of disagreements among Christians as to whether dispensationlism is a heresy or not. But one thing I noticed is that, there are not many consistent dispensationalists just like the Armians, many are just influenced by such eschatology, may not be totally dispensational in their whole system of theology. 

Regards,

Xu


----------



## bookslover

YXU said:


> Surely, Premillenialism is not a heresy, but it departs from the ecumenical creeds which are used to set up Christian orthodoxy in certain degree.



Well, it would be better to say that the ecumenical creeds reflect the orthodoxy of the Bible rather than that they "set up" orthodoxy, as if the creeds control the Bible. Rather, it's the other way around - the creeds are subservient to the Scriptures.

And, again, the fact that the premil view is not reflected in the creeds is not a big deal. It just means that those who wrote those documents were not premil; or (as in the Wesminster Assembly) those who held to the premil view were not able to sway their fellow ministers in that direction when it came to writing the documents.


----------



## Grymir

Thanks Pergamum! The Phantom Heresy articles was a nice read and a refresher in history that brings alot of this discussion into perspective.


----------



## YXU

bookslover said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, Premillenialism is not a heresy, but it departs from the ecumenical creeds which are used to set up Christian orthodoxy in certain degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would be better to say that the ecumenical creeds reflect the orthodoxy of the Bible rather than that they "set up" orthodoxy, as if the creeds control the Bible. Rather, it's the other way around - the creeds are subservient to the Scriptures.
> 
> And, again, the fact that the premil view is not reflected in the creeds is not a big deal. It just means that those who wrote those documents were not premil; or (as in the Wesminster Assembly) those who held to the premil view were not able to sway their fellow ministers in that direction when it came to writing the documents.
Click to expand...


Orthodoxy is not listed in the Bible as obvious and as in detail as it is listed in the creeds. Most of the heresies believe in the Bible, but their problems are revealed by the creeds. 

A creed should help us to understand the Bible, but not to replace the Bible. So I think so they are highly helpful. If some thing departs from a faithful creed, it has a problem in it.

Premil departs from creeds and so it is an error. The creeds has strong support in this issue, II Peter 3:10 and Jude 14,15 are the most obvious verses as far as I know. Unless this verse be twisted, the premil' view cannot stand.


----------



## bookslover

YXU said:


> Premil departs from creeds and so it is an error.



No. The mere fact that the premil view is not mentioned or supported by the creeds does not mean that the premil view is erroneous. It merely means that it is not mentioned or supported by the creeds. You have already admitted that the premil view is not a heresy, so I don't understand why you are having a problem with this.

To put it the other way around: just because a creed or confession supports the amil view (for instance) doesn't obligate me to accept that particular eschatological view.

The OPC (of which I am a member) has very wisely always accepted, as ministers and elders, men who hold to all three of the basic eschatological views (historic premil, postmil, and amil), no matter what any of the various secondary standards might say on the matter.

The historic (or classic) premil view is not heretical and is not in error merely because secondary standards don't support it.


----------



## YXU

bookslover said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Premil departs from creeds and so it is an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mere fact that the premil view is not mentioned or supported by the creeds does not mean that the premil view is erroneous. It merely means that it is not mentioned or supported by the creeds. You have already admitted that the premil view is not a heresy, so I don't understand why you are having a problem with this.
> 
> To put it the other way around: just because a creed or confession supports the amil view (for instance) doesn't obligate me to accept that particular eschatological view.
> 
> The OPC (of which I am a member) has very wisely always accepted, as ministers and elders, men who hold to all three of the basic eschatological views (historic premil, postmil, and amil), no matter what any of the various secondary standards might say on the matter.
> 
> The historic (or classic) premil view is not heretical and is not in error merely because secondary standards don't support it.
Click to expand...


It is an error because of *scripture *say no to it. (II Peter 3:10, Jude 14,15) Creeds are good help to us to understand the scripture and to protect the church as pillar of the truth, if all creeds say no to something, I will be very careful. 

The fact is that for premil, postmil and amil, at least 2 of which are wrong, it is possible that all of which are wrong. But it can never be that all of which are right. If a Christian holds one view, then other two views are definitely wrong to him. 

The another problem with premil view is that the prophecy in Daniel 9 is greatly twisted, our *Christ *who confirmed the everlasting covenant with many by His blood in the last week as Daniel prophesized. *But in the premil view, people say that this is not our Christ but the AntiChrist. *

If a man holds a doctrine not because of scripture but because of his own preference, and use their own preference to twist the meaning of scripture, a small error can become great problems. I see too many people, put on a label to themselves as premil and pre-trib to show up that they are orthodox and make the label of liberals to all the amils and postmils. 

Regards,
Xu


----------



## JoshBrisby

Hello, and sorry for getting in here late--just rejoined the PB yesterday. Please see my intro about me if you wish.

I agree that the premil view is certainly unconfessional. We need to distinguish, though, when it comes to premil teaching that in Daniel 9 the covenant-maker is the Antichrist. There is *dispensational* premillennialism, and there is *historic* premillennialism.

*Dispensationalism* premillennialism teaches that the covenant-maker is Antichrist. But *historic* premillennialism does not. In fact, historic premil has much in common with amillennialism in many ways. See the works of George Eldon Ladd.

Although I'm not a fan of any form of premillennialism, I do admit that Ladd's scholarly works at least in my view gave historic premillennialism at least some credibility.


----------



## Wannabee

JoshBrisby said:


> *Dispensationalism* premillennialism teaches that the covenant-maker is Antichrist. But *historic* premillennialism does not. In fact, historic premil has much in common with amillennialism in many ways. See the works of George Eldon Ladd.


For clarity (or lack of), there are those who stand on every stepping stone between the two as well. Attempts to pin this down are futile. Somewhere in-between there is a single stepping stone where one steps from historic to Dispensational premil. But there is little agreement as to where that particular step is; mostly because it is a result, not a cause.


----------



## bookslover

YXU said:


> The fact is that for premil, postmil and amil, at least 2 of which are wrong, it is possible that all of which are wrong. But it can never be that all of which are right. If a Christian holds one view, then other two views are definitely wrong to him.



This is why Christians should hold to their eschatological views with humility. We should hold them sincerely, but humbly. As I've said elsewhere on the PB, the mere fact that the church has, over the last 20 centuries, teased out three basic eschatological views from the same biblical material should be a hint that we don't know as much about the end times as we like to think we do - no matter which basic view we espouse!

Eschatology is one of those areas in theology where good, sincere, Christian people differ. And it will probably be that way until our Lord (historic premillennially!) returns.


----------



## YXU

bookslover said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that for premil, postmil and amil, at least 2 of which are wrong, it is possible that all of which are wrong. But it can never be that all of which are right. If a Christian holds one view, then other two views are definitely wrong to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why Christians should hold to their eschatological views with humility. We should hold them sincerely, but humbly. As I've said elsewhere on the PB, the mere fact that the church has, over the last 20 centuries, teased out three basic eschatological views from the same biblical material should be a hint that we don't know as much about the end times as we like to think we do - no matter which basic view we espouse!
> 
> Eschatology is one of those areas in theology where good, sincere, Christian people differ. And it will probably be that way until our Lord (historic premillennially!) returns.
Click to expand...


Mr. Zuelch

I appreciate the humble spirit in the statement. I think we should hold our doctrines firmly with a teachable spirit to ourselves as well as a humble spirit to others. But, a humble spirit never refrain us from arguing with each other over the truth.

The detail application of certain minor parts of scripture does involve great difficulties, but the general principel thereof is obvious and is easy to obtain. That is the ressurection and the last judgment is immediately after the coming of our Christ,

I do honestly want to know your interpretation of II Peter 3:10, Jude 14,15 and the chronological order of Revelation Chapter 19 to Chapter 20. 

Sincerely,

YX


----------



## Wannabee

The general principle of eschatology seemed obvious and easy to the schlars of Jesus' day as well - that's why they crucified their Messiah in the face of the obvious. Beware of eschatological elitism. Those who fail to consider other possibilities may fail to discern the face of the sky... (Matthew 16:1-4).


----------



## YXU

Wannabee said:


> The general principle of eschatology seemed obvious and easy to the schlars of Jesus' day as well - that's why they crucified their Messiah in the face of the obvious. Beware of eschatological elitism. Those who fail to consider other possibilities may fail to discern the face of the sky... (Matthew 16:1-4).



Is Matthew 16:1-4 relevant to the topic, it is a condemnation to the unbelieving covenant people of God who has Abraham as their "father". Is what the unbelieving people need other possibilities? They need repentance. 

There is no such thing called elitism in thelogy, but there is only the truth and the form of doctrines received. God has given an absolute, objective belief system that we are responsible to maintain (Jude 3), the house of God is the pillar and ground of the truth, and we are responsbile for faithful doctrines (I Tim 3:15, Acts 2:42, II Tim 1:13, 2:15, 24,25, I Tim 1:3, 4:6 Eph 4:14 Rom 6:17). God's house has always been a confessional people (Deut. 26). There is no such things as other possiblities, there is only the doctrines and the truth received from the Apostles that is recorded in II Peter 3:10 regarding this matter. 

Scripture is sufficient and is clear in this matter, that Christ comes after the millennium. There is no shred of evidence as Christ comes before the millennium, not even in Revelation Chapter 20. On the contrary, Revelation Chapter 20 teaches Christ comes with judgment and with fire from heaven after the millennium, it matches what Peter said in II Peter 3:10. 

Any argument should based on the scripture and how to interpretate God's Word faithfully. Calling something elitism to solve a problem does not make any sense.


----------



## Wannabee

YXU said:


> There is no such thing called elitism in thelogy, but there is only the truth and the form of doctrines received.
> Scripture is sufficient and is clear in this matter, that Christ comes after the millennium. There is no shred of evidence as Christ comes before the millennium, not even in Revelation Chapter 20. On the contrary, Revelation Chapter 20 teaches Christ comes with judgment and with fire from heaven after the millennium, it matches what Peter said in II Peter 3:10.
> Any argument should based on the scripture and how to interpretate God's Word faithfully. Calling something elitism to solve a problem does not make any sense.


There is a certain incongruity in these statements. Elitism does not refer to those who are right. It refers to those who are self-proclaimed experts and look down on those who don't agree. On this board we have paedos and credos. We have amils, premils and postmils. We discuss these issues with charity, attempting to understand one another while at the same time disagreeing. Occasionally someone comes along and thinks that he has all the answers to all the questions because God has given him all the understanding of all the Scriptures and he's going to set everyone straight. This is theological elitism, and it runs rampant among christendom, reformed or not. 
Though I find amil to be a stretch, I do give it credibility because there are some good points to be made. However, it does come back to one's hermeneutics and understanding of Scripture. Much of my understanding is simply because there is an article before "thousand years" in Revelation 20. I don't need to push that on anyone else. But neither will I accept what I perceive as an imposition on Scripture. Many who argue against premil impose their understanding on premil in their arguments (as has been done in this thread many times). Will Jesus return in judgment at the beginning of the millennium? I think so. But not to establish the eternal state. He WILL return at the end of the millennium final judgment though - and on that we agree.
What it comes down to, here, is that this has been hashed out a bazillion times on this board. On occasion someone is convinced. But usually it's a time of gaining mutual understanding and, hopefully, respect. 
Before continuing to discredit the arguments that are given for premil, it would be prudent and wise to first search the threads here in order to understand what the premil folks on this discussion board really think, and what their arguments are. From there, perhaps, there would be room for further debate. But, more likely, you'll see that they are just as convinced as you are and ready to be gracious to brothers who differ in eschatological specifics, but share joy in the certain hope of our Savior returning in triumph and glory.


Respectfully,
Your brother,
kai sundoulos Christou,


----------



## YXU

Brother,

I got your idea, I am not thinking about you as low. I rejoice with all those who rejoice about the coming of our Lord. I will examine myself so that in further communication, it should be made in charity and peace. 

But I do want to hear about the opinion of brothers who hold premil's view based on their careful examination of the scripture about three verses, II Peter 3:10, Jude 14,15 and I Corinthians 15:23. 

Regards,
Xu


----------



## Grymir

Jude 14? You mean that verse that mentions Enoch? Who was raptured up in Gen 5:24?


----------



## Grymir

Grymir said:


> Jude 14? You mean that verse that mentions Enoch? Who was raptured up in Gen 5:24?



 Sometimes I amaze myself!!!! 

<-----The applause from the studio audience!


Alot of ideas on this thread are based on chronological timing in Biblical passages. 

But in Luke 18:18,19 Jesus is quoting a passage in the O.T. In vs 19 Jesus end saying "To preach the acceptable year of the Lord." Then in vs 21 He says "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." It's from Isaiah 61:1,2. In vs 2 Isaiah writes - "To proclaim the acceptable day of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God." 

Notice that Jesus Himself stopped reading in the middle of the sentence of Isaiah 61:2. This at least shows that although things follow each other, they don't have to follow immediately chronologically.

But, YXU, why do you want to know my interpretation of those verses? Is there not better people than me to provide good interpretation? Or is this a Colombo type question to draw us pre-mil types out and attempt to squash us? You already think we are non-confessional. I love to debate as much or even more-so than others and can do a good job, but I wanted to establish some parameters first. And when I debate, I like to go for the jugular first rant, so there would be better, more difficult passages to explain...

...on both sides. That's the problem. Both (or all) sides have issues and problematic passages that have to be resolved. Those have been written about, sung about, talked about, and yes, even debated ad infanitum. 

And most of your OP has been answered already by people much wiser than me, so if you want to hash out verses like this (which would be off topic), lets start a seperate thread and have at it!  A pre-mil/post/amil smackdown!


----------



## historyb

> II Peter 3:10, Jude 14,15 and I Corinthians 15:23



I looked at all these and even though I lean amill I don't see anything therein which would disprove pre-mil


----------

