Amillennialism, The Two Kingdom Construct, and Presuppositional Apologetics

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jared

Puritan Board Freshman
I know that some people believe that it is inconsistent to believe in the two kingdom construct and be a presuppositionalist and be a postmillennialist or a classical premillennialist. Well, I am a classical premillennialist.

I understand why it would seem illogical to some people on the surface to believe in the two kingdom construct and believe in classical premillennialism. However, I was listening to a series of lectures by Dr. Robert J. Cara from RTS on the Pauline epistles and he mentioned the two kingdom construct and the now and the not yet aspects of the kingdom. I'm not used to hearing people mention both of these concepts together.

Would that not muddy the waters a bit regarding the two kingdom construct to also talk about the now and not yet aspects of the kingdom? In other words, if the kingdom is now in one sense and not yet in another sense, does that not do away with the clear delineation that Amillennialist presuppositionalists like to make between this present evil age and the age to come?

George Eldon Ladd was a covenantal premillennialist (as I am, partially due to his influence at least indirectly) and he is arguably the one who popularized the concept of the now and the not yet aspects of the kingdom.

I'm not sure of Dr. Robert J. Cara's eschatology but I would assume that since he is presbyterian he is probably an amillennialist.

So, can you believe in the two kingdom construct and the already and not yet of the kingdom?
 
What do you mean by "The Two Kingdom Construct"?

That Christ's Kingdom is already here in history and on Earth, but is also fully realised after the end of this present world?

In the case of the type of premillennialism you speak about, it would appear that you've got three kingdoms

(a) Christ's present kingdom until the millennium.

(b) Christ's millennial kingdom.

(c) Christ's eternal kingdom.
 
What do you mean by "The Two Kingdom Construct"?

That Christ's Kingdom is already here in history and on Earth, but is also fully realised after the end of this present world?

In the case of the type of premillennialism you speak about, it would appear that you've got three kingdoms

(a) Christ's present kingdom until the millennium.

(b) Christ's millennial kingdom.

(c) Christ's eternal kingdom.

That's exactly the assumption that I was referring to. I'm not sure that this line of reasoning is warranted by scripture. That interpretation seems at least on the surface to be at odds with the concept of the now and not yet of the kingdom.

I see both of these concepts in scripture. So, I think there must be some way to square all of that without losing either concept.
 
since he is presbyterian he is probably an amillennialist.

Probably not a safe assumption. In the PCA, at least, Historic pre-mil, amil, and post mil are all accepted.

I think I'm understanding what is meant by that.

A few qualifiers though might be helpful.

Each presbytery evaluates in line with the Westminster Standards. The Standards are basically what (we now) call "amillennial" (though that term did not exist at the time of their writing and what we now call amill was generally known by the term postmill then- but that is beyond the scope of your post).

Anecdotal evidence only- amill, postmill and something like a blend of the two are all common in the PCA, reflecting, I think the Westminster view.

Historical pre-mill, when understood in context of the standards, would require several requested exceptions, including at least one in the Larger Catechism, and would need to be thoroughly evaluated for other implications.

While I would not say never, it seems rare that one could work this out in good faith with the Westminster Standards, and be convinced historical "pre-mill."

It took many years to understand this, but after studying the implications, this has become much more clear, and answers why indeed it is rare to find a sustainable historic pre-mill position among the biblical, reformed Presbyterian denominations.
 
I haven't read him, but I've seen it stated by others that the amillennialist Anthony Hoekema was influenced by Ladd's Now and Not Yet emphasis, among other influences. I think Vos and Ridderbos would be other influences in that general direction. Others here will be far more familiar with these authors.

Like partial preterism, I think some form of 2k (with certain modifications as the case may require) can be held to by those from just about any eschatological persuasion. in my opinion the "R2k" approach to cultural engagement and that of classic dispensationalism are not wholly dissimilar.

As far as Ladd goes, I'm not so sure that he exactly fits the covenant description. If I'm not mistaken, he disavowed CT, although in his day apparently it was generally thought that you had to be CT or dispensational, broadly speaking. (His student Dennis McFadden may know more regarding this.)

I think Ladd is "historic premil" in the sense that he was post-trib. But when you compare him to earlier covenant and Reformed premils like Spurgeon, Ryle, the Bonars, Alexander Keith, David Baron and many others, I think you will see a distinct difference with regard to the interpretation of what the latter would consider to be unfulfilled OT prophecy. I haven't read him through, but in general, Ladd appears to have had little difference with amils on that question, and argues that the NT reinterprets OT prophecies that on their face seem to demand some sort of literal fulfillment.

Dr. Thomas Schreiner is a contemporary scholar who is heavily influenced by Ladd. Within the past few years, in the midst of a sermon series on Revelation, he switched from amil to historic premil. (You can probably still find the sermon on the Clifton Baptist Church (KY) site.) I'm not sure that much changed other than his view of Rev. 20.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

What do you mean by "The Two Kingdom Construct"?

That Christ's Kingdom is already here in history and on Earth, but is also fully realised after the end of this present world?

In the case of the type of premillennialism you speak about, it would appear that you've got three kingdoms

(a) Christ's present kingdom until the millennium.

(b) Christ's millennial kingdom.

(c) Christ's eternal kingdom.

That's exactly the assumption that I was referring to. I'm not sure that this line of reasoning is warranted by scripture. That interpretation seems at least on the surface to be at odds with the concept of the now and not yet of the kingdom.

I see both of these concepts in scripture. So, I think there must be some way to square all of that without losing either concept.

I think that it would be fair to say that historic premil would see these as different phases of the kingdom, which is where the already and not yet comes in. The idea of "different kingdoms" if meant as totally distinct kingdoms with essentially no relation to each other, is basically a classic dispensational idea that even the progressive dispensationalists have cast aside.

The Progressive dispensationalists were heavily influenced by Ladd too, particularly the teaching of an inaugurated kingdom, which both classic (Scofield/Chafer) and revised or normative dispensationalism (Walvoord/Ryrie/McClain) reject.
 
indeed it is rare to find a sustainable historic pre-mill position among the biblical, reformed Presbyterian denominations.

As Dr. Clark posted here http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/eschatology-pca-17645/
When the PCA merged with the RPCES (which as I understand it, held an historic pre-mil eschatology) a number of pre-millennial congregations and ministers joined the PCA.

I'd go even further than that. It's my understanding that eschatology was not something focused on when the PCA was formed, and some pre-mil pastors and congregations came in from the beginning. And around here, you can find some pastors who have gotten further from their DTS roots than others.
 
I don't think the RPCES was uniformly premil, (and certainly not in any official way) but a lot of them were premils, including prominent faculty at Covenant Seminary. J. Oliver Buswell and R. Laird Harris come to mind. Gordon Clark and Francis Schaeffer are a couple of other notables. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church (not to be confused with the current one) was one of the churches in the merger that resulted in the RPCES. It had its origins in the Bible Presbyterian Church, (as did Schaeffer) which was premil. This was one of the reasons for the OPC/BPC split. It also may have been one of the reasons why the RPCES/OPC merger failed in 1975 when the RPCES voted against it. Some likely didn't want to fight the battles of the 30's and 40's all over again.

in my opinion, some kind of crusade against historic premils is the last thing the PCA needs, especially since it's a system subscription denomination anyway. (Thus, it wouldn't get anywhere without a complete change of the foundation and mindset of the PCA.) It seems to me that the Fourth Commandment is a lot clearer and is of more import, and that is routinely flouted in Presbytery examinations. Ditto for Second Commandment violations. There are a lot bigger fish to fry when some are apparently allowed to question the historicity of Adam and when Leithart and other Federal Visionists are judged by their Presbyteries to be within the bounds of the standards (and Scripture.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top