Credobaptism and Millennial Positions

[JohnV]

Paul:

In reply to,
[quote:680f772d34]Why, John, cannot someone feel confident that the Scriptures teach a certain position? If I think that Scripture teaches something then it weould actually be sinful to take your advice. [/quote:680f772d34]

let me say that I did not say you could not so be perusaded. In fact, I think it is right and proper to be persuaded of one of the views. However, it is an entirely different thing to then assert that therefore the Scriptures do teach that and no other. I am, of course, thinking about things that the Scripture does not give us the difinitive answer to, such as the Millennium.

Far from being sinful to take this advice, I think it is the only one that is not. That is why I said it. However, this too is something that I may be wrong on, so I apply it only to myself. The millennial views are incomplete, but it may yet be that a more wholesome view of one of them is indeed the right one. In such a case we would have been fools to ignore it. I am not at all suggesting that we do not heed the strength of any one argument. That would be wrong. But, there is a difference between an argument we see no escape from and one that is expressly taught in Scripture. We should not mistake our limitations for exhausitive knowledge.

I believe, for example, that Christ is the only way of salvation. There are so many who disagree. But the Bible asserts it, not me. There are some who believe the Post-Millennial view. But there are some who disagree. But here the best one can do is to say that, according on his understanding, this is what the Scripture teaches. He has no place to say that this is what Scripture teaches, and that this is what everyone should believe, or he is not believing Scripture. He may say so as his opinion, but he cannot dogmatically assert that Scripture teaches it. Because the fact remains that no church has ever confessed that, and for a person to assert it is to think himself higher than the church. We should never go further than what Scripture warrants. And our personal warrants are not as wholesome as the Scripture's warrants; we are not infallible, but the Scripture is.

The Church has only ever confessed that which the Bible teaches, and those things that of necessity follow from Scripture. No church has ever said that any one Millennial view is necessarily deduced from the Bible. If they did, we would know that they have overstepped their boundary, for we can make no such necessary deduction. Wish we could, but we can't. We just don't know enough. We are looking ahead into the future, not back at the past. There are many variables that we simply cannot account for. It is out of our reach to make such assertions, even given the information the Bible allows us. We should not be dognatic where the Bible is not dogmatic; and we should fear to jump in where Churches fear to tread.

 

[JohnV]

[quote:f40a8536af]But, John, I am persuaded of the view that Scripture teaches the position I adhere to and no other. Now, if someone showed me from Scripture that I was wrong I would bend the knee. But at this point I think that Scripture teaches postmill and not a or pre mill.
[/quote:f40a8536af]
If you are persuaded, and you are persuaded by Scripture, then I support that. All I am saying is that no one can assert something based on someone else's persuasion. It has to be the Bible that asserts it.

Now, you may feel that the Bible asserts something, such as the Post-Mil view, and that is fine. No, more, it is good. I can respect that. I cannot respect the Bible being turned to avow something it in fact does not, though. There is a difference between being convinced of such things, and being dogmatic about it over others. That is pride. God can and does reveal Himself to simple men, men who are not given to in-depth knowledge about such things, and who yet show very sound wisdom from God.

Historically, the church has allowed three views on the Millennium. The preference has lately been for the A-mil position, and secondly for the Pre-mil, and lastly for the Post-Mil. That may change, and soon. But it does no damage to any one of the positions if it does change; and it does nothing to change anyone's standing in faith. All that can be done, if it is done in faith and in proper respect to Scripture, is to grow in each of these views. The reason the churches have allowed all three within the Reformed confession is that there are Scriptural bases for each, bases that conform to the standards of faith. Whatever is true to the Scripture has to show these marks. We cannot write them off with our exegetical acrobatics. The true view on the Millennium will account for all that Scripture has to say on it, and will put all interpretation of texts aright.

Until then, I think that it goes a little far to think that anyone person has achieved in understanding what the church has not, with all its gifted personages God has granted her.

Don't get me wrong. One does well to hold to a particular view of eschatology. One does well to be learned in it, and to be able to sift through the ins and outs of it. It is good to be well grounded in one's views. This is all very good, and is a mark of excellence. One does even better, though, if one remembers the limits of what he has learned.