Credobaptism and Millennial Positions
- Thread starter Roldan
- Start date
- Status
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:4bb7060783][i:4bb7060783]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:4bb7060783]
I have been asking that question to my "Reformed" baptist brothers and cannot get a straight answer EVER.
HELP!
[/quote:4bb7060783]
What is it that you think would prevent a credo-baptist from being either amil or postmil? I'm not a CB, but I'm not seeing the disconnect. Perhaps I'm just a bit dense.
I have been asking that question to my "Reformed" baptist brothers and cannot get a straight answer EVER.
HELP!
[/quote:4bb7060783]What is it that you think would prevent a credo-baptist from being either amil or postmil? I'm not a CB, but I'm not seeing the disconnect. Perhaps I'm just a bit dense.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I am a CredoBaptist so I'll give it a shot. If there is anything that would bring me to the paedo camp, it would be postmillennialism. The biggest challenge to my credo tenets came from Rushdoony. Unfortunately I cannot find the quote I was looking for. I can see a bigger challenge coming from amillennialism than postmillennialism. From the amil writers I have read (Riddlebarger and Horton) I see a connection between eschatology and the covenant. I can't remember how Rushdoony tied that in to a postmil perspective.
I am credobaptist and have grown up in SBC. When I first became reformed I vowed that I would never leave my baptist roots. However, attending an OPC church and reading some of the arguments on the board, I have a greater appreciation for covenant theology. I would say at the moment that I am leaning 70/30 credo (that is a big concession, very few baptists would say that).
I am credobaptist and have grown up in SBC. When I first became reformed I vowed that I would never leave my baptist roots. However, attending an OPC church and reading some of the arguments on the board, I have a greater appreciation for covenant theology. I would say at the moment that I am leaning 70/30 credo (that is a big concession, very few baptists would say that).
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:006c56869d][i:006c56869d]Originally posted by Finn McCool[/i:006c56869d]
When I first became reformed I vowed that I would never leave my baptist roots.[/quote:006c56869d]
Why would you make a vow like that?
When I first became reformed I vowed that I would never leave my baptist roots.[/quote:006c56869d]
Why would you make a vow like that?
[quote:326365bc0c][i:326365bc0c]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:326365bc0c]
I have been asking that question to my "Reformed" baptist brothers and cannot get a straight answer EVER.
HELP! [/quote:326365bc0c]
I do not understand why this would be strange. Care to elaborate?
As far as I know most Reformed Baptists are amil, some are postmil, and very few are premil.
I have been asking that question to my "Reformed" baptist brothers and cannot get a straight answer EVER.
HELP!
[/quote:326365bc0c]I do not understand why this would be strange. Care to elaborate?
As far as I know most Reformed Baptists are amil, some are postmil, and very few are premil.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
[quote:ec7d671466][i:ec7d671466]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:ec7d671466]
Why would you make a vow like that?[/quote:ec7d671466]
PRESUPPOSITIONS!!!! You have to understand--most baptists (although not those on this board) never hear the other side of the coin, and if they do, they immediately draw the inference that all paedobaptists have a Romish belief of baptism. I mean, when you see a person baptized almost every Sunday for 15 or so years, you begin to think that this must be the way. Couple that with the fact that most Baptists won't preach the other side of the coin during an "invitation." I first had an OPC minister try to convert me. Didn't work. He then gave me a video on paedobaptism by Pratt--that was very good, opened my eyes to a lot of concepts...it even began, I dare say, to make sense. Please pray for me in this area. If I ever make the switch to Covenant Theology, it would cause an uproar in my family and church. I am not fully persuaded yet, and if I am honest, I am not yet ready to be persuaded. Be patient with me.
Why would you make a vow like that?[/quote:ec7d671466]
PRESUPPOSITIONS!!!! You have to understand--most baptists (although not those on this board) never hear the other side of the coin, and if they do, they immediately draw the inference that all paedobaptists have a Romish belief of baptism. I mean, when you see a person baptized almost every Sunday for 15 or so years, you begin to think that this must be the way. Couple that with the fact that most Baptists won't preach the other side of the coin during an "invitation." I first had an OPC minister try to convert me. Didn't work. He then gave me a video on paedobaptism by Pratt--that was very good, opened my eyes to a lot of concepts...it even began, I dare say, to make sense. Please pray for me in this area. If I ever make the switch to Covenant Theology, it would cause an uproar in my family and church. I am not fully persuaded yet, and if I am honest, I am not yet ready to be persuaded. Be patient with me.
I don't see a conflict between credobaptism and amillennialism. Although I can see why someone could see a conflict between credobaptism and postmillennialism. Based upon their idea of the kingdom that it will one day include and govern all areas of life, i.e. believers children, the state, the arts etc I can see a slight discontinuity between credobaptism and postmillennialism, but not with amillennial position, since it sees the glorified kingdom as more eschatological than postmillennialism does.
VanVos :wr50:
VanVos :wr50:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
What I propose is a tentative investigation with respect to an Amillennial view being more consistent with Covenant Theology. I do this with great trepidation for I am neither Amillennial nor paedobaptistic. Furthermore, the only amillennialist that I have read is Kim Riddlebarger, so I am going on limited sources and in no way pretend that my word is definitive or exhaustive.
I will be using quotes from Riddlebargers book to show that I see similarities between aspects of Covenant Theology and Amilllennialism.
"To understand the eschatology of the old testament, we must consider the various covenants found throughout it...In the old Testament a covenant was a relationship under sanctions." Riddlebarger then expounds upon the covenant in Genesis 15 drawing the inference that IF YHWH failed to be Abram's reward and shield, the covenant curse, graphically pictured by the severed animals, would fall on YHWH himself (45).
Never mind, my argument will not be as strong as I had thought. I thought that Riddlebarger would bring in Gen 17 as well, but he does not. If I have misrepresented any positions in my half-baked argument, I beg your forgiveness. I was typing from the top of my head.
I will be using quotes from Riddlebargers book to show that I see similarities between aspects of Covenant Theology and Amilllennialism.
"To understand the eschatology of the old testament, we must consider the various covenants found throughout it...In the old Testament a covenant was a relationship under sanctions." Riddlebarger then expounds upon the covenant in Genesis 15 drawing the inference that IF YHWH failed to be Abram's reward and shield, the covenant curse, graphically pictured by the severed animals, would fall on YHWH himself (45).
Never mind, my argument will not be as strong as I had thought. I thought that Riddlebarger would bring in Gen 17 as well, but he does not. If I have misrepresented any positions in my half-baked argument, I beg your forgiveness. I was typing from the top of my head.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Personally, from my own experience, I would discourage any shift in theology based on a view of the millennium. If you're Credo, don't change to Paedo based on which millennial view you take. This belongs on the end of the theological schooling, not as a basis for it.
It's just that I've seen people go off the deep end, thinking they've got all their ducks in a row theologically, and miss the main point. I think it's important to keep the millennium in perspective: it's future and will always be speculative until it has happened. I don't expect that there will be anyone who is not going to be surprised by the way God works things out in the end. We won't have it all figured out, no matter how well we think we've got it down.
It's just that I've seen people go off the deep end, thinking they've got all their ducks in a row theologically, and miss the main point. I think it's important to keep the millennium in perspective: it's future and will always be speculative until it has happened. I don't expect that there will be anyone who is not going to be surprised by the way God works things out in the end. We won't have it all figured out, no matter how well we think we've got it down.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
[quote:878aef337a][i:878aef337a]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:878aef337a]
We won't have it all figured out, no matter how well we think we've got it down. [/quote:878aef337a]
You have never read Hal Lindsey, have you?
We won't have it all figured out, no matter how well we think we've got it down. [/quote:878aef337a]
You have never read Hal Lindsey, have you?
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
[b:046127d6d5]John wrote:[/b:046127d6d5]
Personally, from my own experience, I would discourage any shift in theology based on a view of the millennium. If you're Credo, don't change to Paedo based on which millennial view you take. This belongs on the end of the theological schooling, not as a basis for it.
Have you ever known anybody to change from Credo to paedo (or vice versa) based on a millenial view? Seems a little odd.
Bob
[Edited on 7-6-2004 by blhowes]
Personally, from my own experience, I would discourage any shift in theology based on a view of the millennium. If you're Credo, don't change to Paedo based on which millennial view you take. This belongs on the end of the theological schooling, not as a basis for it.
Have you ever known anybody to change from Credo to paedo (or vice versa) based on a millenial view? Seems a little odd.
Bob
[Edited on 7-6-2004 by blhowes]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
[quote:fd19479b38][i:fd19479b38]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:fd19479b38]
[b:fd19479b38]John wrote:[/b:fd19479b38]
Have you ever known anybody to change from Credo to paedo (or vice versa) based on a millenial view? Seems a little odd.
Bob
[Edited on 7-6-2004 by blhowes] [/quote:fd19479b38]
I know this isn't intellectually honest, but I would probably be one of the few who would do it that way
[b:fd19479b38]John wrote:[/b:fd19479b38]
Have you ever known anybody to change from Credo to paedo (or vice versa) based on a millenial view? Seems a little odd.
Bob
[Edited on 7-6-2004 by blhowes] [/quote:fd19479b38]
I know this isn't intellectually honest, but I would probably be one of the few who would do it that way
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:087a1931d0][i:087a1931d0]Originally posted by Bob Howes[/i:087a1931d0]
Have you ever known anybody to change from Credo to paedo (or vice versa) based on a millenial view? Seems a little odd. [/quote:087a1931d0]
No, I haven't.
Two things here: I haven't run into too many Reformed Baptists until recently. So I haven't run into very many at all who have changed from Credo to Paedo. I have seen it the other way around, though.
Second, I've seen people shift theology based on the millennial view. In reality, they've just changed from one narrow mind into another narrow mind.
I respect someone who vows not not change from what they hold to be orthodoxy. These people don't change easily, and I like that. It's not right, though, to hold up some things as unchangeable, while the real unchangeables are up for grabs. That's why it's not a good idea to change theological roots for something like the millennium. If Covenant theology is consistent, of course then the millennial view would have to be consistent with it as well. But there are much more solid things that to looked at for consistency. And the millennium needs to be considered in light of it's consistency with theology as a whole, and not be the associative link that ties it together. Theology is much more sure than the speculation concerning the thousand years.
Have you ever known anybody to change from Credo to paedo (or vice versa) based on a millenial view? Seems a little odd. [/quote:087a1931d0]
No, I haven't.
Two things here: I haven't run into too many Reformed Baptists until recently. So I haven't run into very many at all who have changed from Credo to Paedo. I have seen it the other way around, though.
Second, I've seen people shift theology based on the millennial view. In reality, they've just changed from one narrow mind into another narrow mind.
I respect someone who vows not not change from what they hold to be orthodoxy. These people don't change easily, and I like that. It's not right, though, to hold up some things as unchangeable, while the real unchangeables are up for grabs. That's why it's not a good idea to change theological roots for something like the millennium. If Covenant theology is consistent, of course then the millennial view would have to be consistent with it as well. But there are much more solid things that to looked at for consistency. And the millennium needs to be considered in light of it's consistency with theology as a whole, and not be the associative link that ties it together. Theology is much more sure than the speculation concerning the thousand years.
[quote:f9e1b74986][i:f9e1b74986]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:f9e1b74986]
Personally, from my own experience, I would discourage any shift in theology based on a view of the millennium. If you're Credo, don't change to Paedo based on which millennial view you take. This belongs on the end of the theological schooling, not as a basis for it.
It's just that I've seen people go off the deep end, thinking they've got all their ducks in a row theologically, and miss the main point. I think it's important to keep the millennium in perspective: it's future and will always be speculative until it has happened. I don't expect that there will be anyone who is not going to be surprised by the way God works things out in the end. We won't have it all figured out, no matter how well we think we've got it down. [/quote:f9e1b74986]
Excellent post, John!
(this from a Reformed Baptist who is historically premillennial but does not see any reason why a Baptist could hold any of the eschatological views! I just don't get the question that started this thread?)
Phillip
Personally, from my own experience, I would discourage any shift in theology based on a view of the millennium. If you're Credo, don't change to Paedo based on which millennial view you take. This belongs on the end of the theological schooling, not as a basis for it.
It's just that I've seen people go off the deep end, thinking they've got all their ducks in a row theologically, and miss the main point. I think it's important to keep the millennium in perspective: it's future and will always be speculative until it has happened. I don't expect that there will be anyone who is not going to be surprised by the way God works things out in the end. We won't have it all figured out, no matter how well we think we've got it down. [/quote:f9e1b74986]
Excellent post, John!
(this from a Reformed Baptist who is historically premillennial but does not see any reason why a Baptist could hold any of the eschatological views! I just don't get the question that started this thread?)
Phillip
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
[quote:d605e5b74a][i:d605e5b74a]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:d605e5b74a]
.
Having said that I do think that postmill and credoism would be extremely hard to mesh. One basic reason is that postmills include physical/earthly promises to Abraham as having a temporal effect in the current age. Now, paedo's of all pursuasions tend to see physical, familial, corporate w/respects to the family but postmills apply the same physicality to the eschatological passages as well. [/quote:d605e5b74a]
I see cracks in my system. I guess this would be in line with what I am about to say. Bahnsen writes:
"The methodological point, then, is that we presume our obligation to obey any Old Testament commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise. We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. THis is not to say that there are no changes fromt the Old Testament to the New. Indeed, there are--important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard whcih defines precisely what those changes are for us; we cannot take it upon ourselves to assume such changes or read them into the New Testament. God's word, His direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its authority until God reveals otherwise. [i:d605e5b74a]This is, in a sense, the heart of Covenant Theology [/i:d605e5b74a] over against a dispensational understanding of the relationship between Old and New Testaments" ([i:d605e5b74a]By This Standard[/i:d605e5b74a], 3).
That is the big challenge to me.
.
Having said that I do think that postmill and credoism would be extremely hard to mesh. One basic reason is that postmills include physical/earthly promises to Abraham as having a temporal effect in the current age. Now, paedo's of all pursuasions tend to see physical, familial, corporate w/respects to the family but postmills apply the same physicality to the eschatological passages as well. [/quote:d605e5b74a]
I see cracks in my system. I guess this would be in line with what I am about to say. Bahnsen writes:
"The methodological point, then, is that we presume our obligation to obey any Old Testament commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise. We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. THis is not to say that there are no changes fromt the Old Testament to the New. Indeed, there are--important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard whcih defines precisely what those changes are for us; we cannot take it upon ourselves to assume such changes or read them into the New Testament. God's word, His direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its authority until God reveals otherwise. [i:d605e5b74a]This is, in a sense, the heart of Covenant Theology [/i:d605e5b74a] over against a dispensational understanding of the relationship between Old and New Testaments" ([i:d605e5b74a]By This Standard[/i:d605e5b74a], 3).
That is the big challenge to me.
[quote:5aa5a75ae8][i:5aa5a75ae8]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:5aa5a75ae8]
I think this is percisely why Warfield rests his case for infant baptism upon this argument:
God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it.
They must remain there until He puts them out.
He has nowhere put them out.
[/quote:5aa5a75ae8]
Wow. This just hit me...hard. I don't know what it is, but the idea of not carrying on that which God has prescribed seems .... well .... wrong. Such a simple thing yet so important.
I think this is percisely why Warfield rests his case for infant baptism upon this argument:
God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it.
They must remain there until He puts them out.
He has nowhere put them out.
[/quote:5aa5a75ae8]
Wow. This just hit me...hard. I don't know what it is, but the idea of not carrying on that which God has prescribed seems .... well .... wrong. Such a simple thing yet so important.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
[quote:aa4c275fba][i:aa4c275fba]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:aa4c275fba]
[
well, believe me, our baptists bretheren will have plenty to say about this so you can read their rebuttles. Then...the confusion/fun will start
.
Anyway, I'm glad that it got you thinking.
Paul [/quote:aa4c275fba]
Sadly, I am one of the baptist brethren and I am not up to rebutting my own statement. I guess I could, and probably should one day when I need to make a "decision" for or against paedobaptism
.
[
well, believe me, our baptists bretheren will have plenty to say about this so you can read their rebuttles. Then...the confusion/fun will start
.Anyway, I'm glad that it got you thinking.
Paul [/quote:aa4c275fba]
Sadly, I am one of the baptist brethren and I am not up to rebutting my own statement. I guess I could, and probably should one day when I need to make a "decision" for or against paedobaptism
.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Paul:
You said,
[quote:6149347777]To JohnV and Pastor Way:
I hope you guys don't take offense to this but I find your comments oversimplistic. That is because I view tota scriptura as a systematic unit with all its part interelated to its other parts. Since God gave us Scripture we know that it is coherent and is systematically tied together, so that doctrines affect other doctrines. An easy example is Christ's death. Did Christ die? Yes. Why? To save us from our sins and the wrath of God. What is sin? Any want of conformity or transgression unto the law of God. What is God and what is His law? God is a spirit, infinite eternal and unchanging in His being, power, justice, holiness, goodness and truth. On and on and on we can go. You see just by asking if Christ died we have also touched on many doctrines that are interrelated so that the question of Christ is made intelligible within a system. So, I am saying that since the parts are interelated, and one cannot tamper with part of Scripture without tampering with all of it, then we must agree that eschatology plays an important role in the formation of our systematic theology. Hence, the question of baptism and eschatology are interrelated, and there can only be one truth so therefore, there is only one eschatological system that is logically compatable with the one baptism position (whatever those may be, not taking sides just making a point.) [/quote:6149347777]
You will note that I did not say "eschatology", but referred particularly to the thousand year speculations. I quite agree that the entire Scripture must be self-consistent. I also agree that theological tenets have a bearing on these views. All I said was that it is not good to build beliefs on the more solid parts of Scripture based more upon those less sure parts.
I am sure that all of God's revelation, both in nature and in Scripture, will be entirely systematically tied together. But I am leery of those who think they have it all figured out, or that confuse that systematic with their own.
Everyone and his brother can fit all of Scripture into their system, and see it as a consistent whole. But in reality all they have done is shut out any dissenting views, whether legitimate or not, just because it is not consistent with their view. This is what I've seen happen before with those who make the Millennium a central issue to their understanding of the Bible. That is why I warned about it.
You said,
[quote:6149347777]To JohnV and Pastor Way:
I hope you guys don't take offense to this but I find your comments oversimplistic. That is because I view tota scriptura as a systematic unit with all its part interelated to its other parts. Since God gave us Scripture we know that it is coherent and is systematically tied together, so that doctrines affect other doctrines. An easy example is Christ's death. Did Christ die? Yes. Why? To save us from our sins and the wrath of God. What is sin? Any want of conformity or transgression unto the law of God. What is God and what is His law? God is a spirit, infinite eternal and unchanging in His being, power, justice, holiness, goodness and truth. On and on and on we can go. You see just by asking if Christ died we have also touched on many doctrines that are interrelated so that the question of Christ is made intelligible within a system. So, I am saying that since the parts are interelated, and one cannot tamper with part of Scripture without tampering with all of it, then we must agree that eschatology plays an important role in the formation of our systematic theology. Hence, the question of baptism and eschatology are interrelated, and there can only be one truth so therefore, there is only one eschatological system that is logically compatable with the one baptism position (whatever those may be, not taking sides just making a point.) [/quote:6149347777]
You will note that I did not say "eschatology", but referred particularly to the thousand year speculations. I quite agree that the entire Scripture must be self-consistent. I also agree that theological tenets have a bearing on these views. All I said was that it is not good to build beliefs on the more solid parts of Scripture based more upon those less sure parts.
I am sure that all of God's revelation, both in nature and in Scripture, will be entirely systematically tied together. But I am leery of those who think they have it all figured out, or that confuse that systematic with their own.
Everyone and his brother can fit all of Scripture into their system, and see it as a consistent whole. But in reality all they have done is shut out any dissenting views, whether legitimate or not, just because it is not consistent with their view. This is what I've seen happen before with those who make the Millennium a central issue to their understanding of the Bible. That is why I warned about it.
SmokingFlax
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well...
Maybe I just like doing things the hard way but...I think I'm one of those people who starts his theology with eschatology and works backwards from there. The first book of Scripture that I read was Revelation! Even though I can't say I'm a full fledged paedo baptist I'm certainly moving closer to that direction and the doorway into that position started with looking hard at postmillenialism and especially its "eschatology of hope".
To be completely frank about it, the 10 or so years that I held firm to the pre-mil position were marked (for me) by a complete pessimism about [b:7c5c040ae5]everything[/b:7c5c040ae5] to the point of becoming totally pietistic by default...especially when it was combined with a belief in an imminent judgment due to the obvious and blatant decline in basic morals and faith in the past 40 years in western society.
I still believe we're going to see judgment but the belief in an overcoming church (which I gleaned from the puritans) is an unexpected and welcome dose of spiritual optimism that I (the natural pessimist) was sorely in need of. I'm inclined towards the post-mil view almost singly because of this subjective result alone (though the Scriptural proof is certainly the initial compelling factor).
So I'm very inclined to believe that the systematic nature of Scriptural truth necessitates that eschatology affects a whole bunch of other doctrines that are otherwise not clearly discernable.
What all this says about the original question I'm not quite sure(???)...
Maybe I just like doing things the hard way but...I think I'm one of those people who starts his theology with eschatology and works backwards from there. The first book of Scripture that I read was Revelation! Even though I can't say I'm a full fledged paedo baptist I'm certainly moving closer to that direction and the doorway into that position started with looking hard at postmillenialism and especially its "eschatology of hope".
To be completely frank about it, the 10 or so years that I held firm to the pre-mil position were marked (for me) by a complete pessimism about [b:7c5c040ae5]everything[/b:7c5c040ae5] to the point of becoming totally pietistic by default...especially when it was combined with a belief in an imminent judgment due to the obvious and blatant decline in basic morals and faith in the past 40 years in western society.
I still believe we're going to see judgment but the belief in an overcoming church (which I gleaned from the puritans) is an unexpected and welcome dose of spiritual optimism that I (the natural pessimist) was sorely in need of. I'm inclined towards the post-mil view almost singly because of this subjective result alone (though the Scriptural proof is certainly the initial compelling factor).
So I'm very inclined to believe that the systematic nature of Scriptural truth necessitates that eschatology affects a whole bunch of other doctrines that are otherwise not clearly discernable.
What all this says about the original question I'm not quite sure(???)...
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
In my case, I changed my millennial position before my baptism position. But this was only because at the time I made a conscious decision to study eschatology (I was premill at the time) and not baptism. But in reading writers of Amill and Postmill, I was simultaneously being introduced to Covenant Theology because they all really go together. I left the Premill camp and not long after left the credo camp.
I understand in a way why Roldan asked the question he did, and because of my own experience, I'm inclined to agree with him. But the differences between Baptistic CT and traditional CT are usually accounted for in each respective position on eschatology, if I may echo what Paul said earlier. I, for one, am always very pleased to find Baptists that are either Amill or Postmill. One of my best friends is Baptist and historic Premill, and I am hoping that while he's at SBTS he'll convert at least to Amill. This is not because I think Premill is dangerous or anything, but I just think Premill is basically a silly view. But that's just my silly completely-unimportant-to-the-truth-of-the-matter opinion.
[Edited on 7-7-2004 by luvroftheWord]
I understand in a way why Roldan asked the question he did, and because of my own experience, I'm inclined to agree with him. But the differences between Baptistic CT and traditional CT are usually accounted for in each respective position on eschatology, if I may echo what Paul said earlier. I, for one, am always very pleased to find Baptists that are either Amill or Postmill. One of my best friends is Baptist and historic Premill, and I am hoping that while he's at SBTS he'll convert at least to Amill. This is not because I think Premill is dangerous or anything, but I just think Premill is basically a silly view. But that's just my silly completely-unimportant-to-the-truth-of-the-matter opinion.
[Edited on 7-7-2004 by luvroftheWord]
Ianterrell
Puritan Board Sophomore
Phillip is actually the first Reformed Baptist I've met that isn't Amill, excluding the time I spent as a Historic Premill.
[Edited on 7-7-2004 by Ianterrell]
[Edited on 7-7-2004 by Ianterrell]
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:7ef23fd1ad][i:7ef23fd1ad]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:7ef23fd1ad]
In my case, I changed my millennial position before my baptism position. But this was only because at the time I made a conscious decision to study eschatology (I was premill at the time) and not baptism. But in reading writers of Amill and Postmill, I was simultaneously being introduced to Covenant Theology because they all really go together. I left the Premill camp and not long after left the credo camp.
I understand in a way why Roldan asked the question he did, and because of my own experience, I'm inclined to agree with him. But the differences between Baptistic CT and traditional CT are usually accounted for in each respective position on eschatology, if I may echo what Paul said earlier. I, for one, am always very pleased to find Baptists that are either Amill or Postmill. One of my best friends is Baptist and historic Premill, and I am hoping that while he's at SBTS he'll convert at least to Amill. This is not because I think Premill is dangerous or anything, but I just think Premill is basically a silly view. But that's just my silly completely-unimportant-to-the-truth-of-the-matter opinion.
[Edited on 7-7-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:7ef23fd1ad]
I knew I was not alone. I've asked this question to an OPC minister who was taught under VanTil and said that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a credo to be Amil or Post or EVEN PRESSUP. Go figure.
I just wanted some feedback and I am definately more learned on this subject thanks to Paul (as usual) and lotw and even the confused baptist opc goer guy (I say that in humor).
In my case, I changed my millennial position before my baptism position. But this was only because at the time I made a conscious decision to study eschatology (I was premill at the time) and not baptism. But in reading writers of Amill and Postmill, I was simultaneously being introduced to Covenant Theology because they all really go together. I left the Premill camp and not long after left the credo camp.
I understand in a way why Roldan asked the question he did, and because of my own experience, I'm inclined to agree with him. But the differences between Baptistic CT and traditional CT are usually accounted for in each respective position on eschatology, if I may echo what Paul said earlier. I, for one, am always very pleased to find Baptists that are either Amill or Postmill. One of my best friends is Baptist and historic Premill, and I am hoping that while he's at SBTS he'll convert at least to Amill. This is not because I think Premill is dangerous or anything, but I just think Premill is basically a silly view. But that's just my silly completely-unimportant-to-the-truth-of-the-matter opinion.
[Edited on 7-7-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:7ef23fd1ad]
I knew I was not alone. I've asked this question to an OPC minister who was taught under VanTil and said that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a credo to be Amil or Post or EVEN PRESSUP. Go figure.
I just wanted some feedback and I am definately more learned on this subject thanks to Paul (as usual) and lotw and even the confused baptist opc goer guy (I say that in humor).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I realize the inconsistency in my position. I have discussed a little of this with Webmaster. I am thinking of changing my position to paedobaptism. If the Lord wills I can do this in the next few months (I do not go back to school until August). Please pray for me and my family especially as I make this transition.
Regards
Regards
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
The denomination I grew up in was credobaptistic and amil. I have no idea why. I know that it was almost blasphemy to preach from the book of Revelation, though I heard some preachers do so.
I think postmil goes with the framework I labor under because it does show a fuller picture from the beginning of God's redemption to the end, but each view shows an end. It is just that postmil leans a bit more heavily on the glorious ending and is, by nature, more optimistic.
I have never really been interested in eschatology as much as other doctrines. But recently, my pastor was preaching the text of Hebrews 6:1-3 and it made me realize that eschatology is placed in the category of basic doctrines. I've always wanted to wait 'til later to study it. But if it is elementary, I have neglected it far too long.
In Christ,
KC
I think postmil goes with the framework I labor under because it does show a fuller picture from the beginning of God's redemption to the end, but each view shows an end. It is just that postmil leans a bit more heavily on the glorious ending and is, by nature, more optimistic.
I have never really been interested in eschatology as much as other doctrines. But recently, my pastor was preaching the text of Hebrews 6:1-3 and it made me realize that eschatology is placed in the category of basic doctrines. I've always wanted to wait 'til later to study it. But if it is elementary, I have neglected it far too long.
In Christ,
KC
I've been reading this thread trying to find out why I can't be a Baptist and an amillennialist 
No one seems to have advanced a reason.
Just to stir the pot a little, perhaps I can pick up on something Paul said.
He said, 'God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it.'
So long as one starts with Abraham, it is impossible to understand the covenants properly. You must start at the beginning. 'In the beginning was the Word.' You must start with Christ, 'The Author and finisher of our faith.' 'In [b:dba76dcbcd]Him[/b:dba76dcbcd], all the promises are yes, and in Him Amen', not in Abraham. 'And He is before all things and in Him all things consist' (Col 1:17).
Nowhere does the Bible say that God established the Church with Abraham. Abel, Enoch and Noah knew the promise of the Covenant of Grace, and that without circumcision or baptism. Start with Christ; 'The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.'
Blessings,
Steve
No one seems to have advanced a reason.Just to stir the pot a little, perhaps I can pick up on something Paul said.
He said, 'God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it.'
So long as one starts with Abraham, it is impossible to understand the covenants properly. You must start at the beginning. 'In the beginning was the Word.' You must start with Christ, 'The Author and finisher of our faith.' 'In [b:dba76dcbcd]Him[/b:dba76dcbcd], all the promises are yes, and in Him Amen', not in Abraham. 'And He is before all things and in Him all things consist' (Col 1:17).
Nowhere does the Bible say that God established the Church with Abraham. Abel, Enoch and Noah knew the promise of the Covenant of Grace, and that without circumcision or baptism. Start with Christ; 'The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.'
Blessings,
Steve
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:7726d7b1d3][i:7726d7b1d3]posted by KC[/i:7726d7b1d3]
I think postmil goes with the framework I labor under because it does show a fuller picture from the beginning of God's redemption to the end, but each view shows an end. It is just that postmil leans a bit more heavily on the glorious ending and is, by nature, more optimistic.[/quote:7726d7b1d3]
Kevin:
I hope you don't mind my taking off on your statement quoted above. It gives me an opportunity to say what's on my mind about this.
I cannot give way to this kind of argument. When you look at it, it says exactly nothing. But then, you don't give it as an argument, just a personal perspective. All the same, you should know that there are some who are A-Mil who feel the same way about their view, word for word. Optimism is not an argumentative point, and neither is the more glorious ending. Some don't see the Post- Mil as more optimistic or more glorious than the A-Mil.
For myself, I take the millennial views the same way I take the apologetic views: I think it defeats the purpose of studying or applying the possibilities of the Millennial prophecies to be holding any one view exclusively. What I mean is, I lean to and accept the A-Millennial view for the time being, and value the propositions and arguments for the other two views. I am, in fact, of the A-mil camp; but you won't find me tying it to being Reformed, or Presbyterian, or even being a Christian as if this view is necessary to the faith. It just isn't.
Need proof? Some good Reformed folk, who are also Presbyterian, and therefore also Christian, are persuaded of the Pre- Mil or the Post-Mil or the A-mil view, without any demerit to their faith.
I believe it will be just as God forsaw it to be, just as He has determined it to be. And I suppose that our meagre theories will not do justice to how it actually will be. We will all be surprised; and none of us will have the privilege of saying, "See, I told you so!" So the true Millennial view is the one that is open to the truth, not the one given over to any one of man's theories.
There are some things that are truly Scriptural about each view, and we had better pay attention to them, expecially if those Scriptures do not fit into our view without some kind of acrobatic exegesis.
I can appreciate those who would opt for a "Pan-Mil" view, a view which says that they cannot tie themselves to any one view, and that it will all pan out in the end. But I don't approve of it. This is not the same as what I am saying. In fact, I am saying something quite different. I lean to the A-mil, and find it quite persuasive. So I think the arguments, being Scriptural, are arguments that Scripture binds upon me. But there are some things that the other views also bind upon me, that I will not discount because I can explain them to fit my view. That is putting myself ahead of Scripture. Yes, it will "all pan out", but Scripture has something to say to us that we need to pay attention to, as part of our obedience. So we are called to defend out various views, to see if they stand or fall. But we are not called to discount Scripture if it doesn't fit with views on subjects we don't have enough of a factual basis for. And prophecies on the future is most certainly in that category.
Can a Baptist be A-mil? Why not? He's baptist, isn't he? That already boggles my mind; but I find that they hold their view with integrity all the same. I can't understand it, but that doesn't keep it from happening. And likewise, I suppose that to a Baptist it is mindboggling that I hold to the Paedo view; but that doesn't keep it from being so. What we have in common, and what puts us way ahead of other theologies is that neither of us put our millennial views ahead of our theology. We did not put our personal persuasions ahead of what Scripture teaches. And I think we can agree that Scripture teaches more than the A-Mil, Post-Mil, or Pre-Mil view in its eschatalogical assertions.
For myself, I take it as a warning when anyone asserts his knowledge as if he knows that any one of the Millennial views, or even apologetic views, are exclusively right. He is saying more than he has a right to say. He has persuaded himself, but that is all. We just don't have that kind of information, or ability, to account in full for these matters. The best we can do is to hold to that which Scripture teaches, and be content to be subject to it. We are not practicing subjection when we are subjecting Scripture to our views.
I think postmil goes with the framework I labor under because it does show a fuller picture from the beginning of God's redemption to the end, but each view shows an end. It is just that postmil leans a bit more heavily on the glorious ending and is, by nature, more optimistic.[/quote:7726d7b1d3]
Kevin:
I hope you don't mind my taking off on your statement quoted above. It gives me an opportunity to say what's on my mind about this.
I cannot give way to this kind of argument. When you look at it, it says exactly nothing. But then, you don't give it as an argument, just a personal perspective. All the same, you should know that there are some who are A-Mil who feel the same way about their view, word for word. Optimism is not an argumentative point, and neither is the more glorious ending. Some don't see the Post- Mil as more optimistic or more glorious than the A-Mil.
For myself, I take the millennial views the same way I take the apologetic views: I think it defeats the purpose of studying or applying the possibilities of the Millennial prophecies to be holding any one view exclusively. What I mean is, I lean to and accept the A-Millennial view for the time being, and value the propositions and arguments for the other two views. I am, in fact, of the A-mil camp; but you won't find me tying it to being Reformed, or Presbyterian, or even being a Christian as if this view is necessary to the faith. It just isn't.
Need proof? Some good Reformed folk, who are also Presbyterian, and therefore also Christian, are persuaded of the Pre- Mil or the Post-Mil or the A-mil view, without any demerit to their faith.
I believe it will be just as God forsaw it to be, just as He has determined it to be. And I suppose that our meagre theories will not do justice to how it actually will be. We will all be surprised; and none of us will have the privilege of saying, "See, I told you so!" So the true Millennial view is the one that is open to the truth, not the one given over to any one of man's theories.
There are some things that are truly Scriptural about each view, and we had better pay attention to them, expecially if those Scriptures do not fit into our view without some kind of acrobatic exegesis.
I can appreciate those who would opt for a "Pan-Mil" view, a view which says that they cannot tie themselves to any one view, and that it will all pan out in the end. But I don't approve of it. This is not the same as what I am saying. In fact, I am saying something quite different. I lean to the A-mil, and find it quite persuasive. So I think the arguments, being Scriptural, are arguments that Scripture binds upon me. But there are some things that the other views also bind upon me, that I will not discount because I can explain them to fit my view. That is putting myself ahead of Scripture. Yes, it will "all pan out", but Scripture has something to say to us that we need to pay attention to, as part of our obedience. So we are called to defend out various views, to see if they stand or fall. But we are not called to discount Scripture if it doesn't fit with views on subjects we don't have enough of a factual basis for. And prophecies on the future is most certainly in that category.
Can a Baptist be A-mil? Why not? He's baptist, isn't he? That already boggles my mind; but I find that they hold their view with integrity all the same. I can't understand it, but that doesn't keep it from happening. And likewise, I suppose that to a Baptist it is mindboggling that I hold to the Paedo view; but that doesn't keep it from being so. What we have in common, and what puts us way ahead of other theologies is that neither of us put our millennial views ahead of our theology. We did not put our personal persuasions ahead of what Scripture teaches. And I think we can agree that Scripture teaches more than the A-Mil, Post-Mil, or Pre-Mil view in its eschatalogical assertions.
For myself, I take it as a warning when anyone asserts his knowledge as if he knows that any one of the Millennial views, or even apologetic views, are exclusively right. He is saying more than he has a right to say. He has persuaded himself, but that is all. We just don't have that kind of information, or ability, to account in full for these matters. The best we can do is to hold to that which Scripture teaches, and be content to be subject to it. We are not practicing subjection when we are subjecting Scripture to our views.
I think that it is OK to be confident about a position, but (especially in a Confessional church) if one makes it a term of communion, he needs to be rebuked. There is a reason that the major confessions and creeds don't even come close to addressing this in a dogmatic way.
- Status
Similar threads
