Originally posted by armourbearer
Originally posted by JohnV
Originally posted by armourbearer
Originally posted by JohnV
Such an exception to Pre-millennialism is itself frought with denials of Christ's sovereignty, if not deity. If He is God, then His going one place does not entail His leaving another. In fact, we who are A-millennial believe that He now reigns upon the earth, even though He is seated at the Father's right hand. He intercedes for us presently, even though He proclaimed, "It is finished!" long ago.
As reformed theology does not believe our Lord's human nature is ubiquitous, it is sound to speak of Christ leaving one place and going to another. Acts 1:11, "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."
I was merely addessing, in defence of my Pre-millennial brothers, that this does not at all address what they actually believe concerning Christ's reign. It does not reflect what I believe as an A-millennialist either.
Be that as it may, your objection starts from a faulty premise. Hence your assertion that my exception is "frought with denials of Christ's sovereignty, if not deity" is unacceptable by reformed standards. That makes your belief as an amillennialist, with its acceptance of their belief of premillennialism, untenable according to my traditional belief of realised millennialism.
These "reformed standards" are what I am appealing to. Though I may agree with you that some Pre-millennialists go too far, just as some Post-millennialists go too far, yet I am sensitive to the fact that lately some A-millennialists have gone too far in response to allegations made against the A-millennial point of view.
Through my experiences of late, I have noticed an eight-fold demarcation of the eschatological views. There are the four already mentioned, but each of these may be divided into two distinct categories: those that place too much on them, and those that recognize the limitations.
So the Dispensational view is eliminated by virtue of the fact that doctrine is built upon their particular view, and thereby subjects Scripture to man's reasoning. Both Dispensational views are eliminated, therefore, since both share this characteristic. That leaves six: Pre-mil, Post-mil, A-mil, essential Pre-mil, essential Post-mil, and essential A-mil.
Of these we may eliminate the last three. Though these three do not necessarily build doctrine upon their eschatological view, yet they deem their view as essential doctrine instead of
adiaphora. The millennial views are not essential, and each may hold his view if it does not interfere with sound doctrine.
This is what I am concerned about. I have been subjected to the "essential Post-mil" view. But it was actually worse than that, because for this person his millennial view was not only essential, it was definitive for understanding all doctrine. In other words, though the Post-milllennial view itself is acceptable by Reformed standards, this man who wielded ecclesiastical authority held to a Post-millennial view which was more akin to the Dispensaitional methodolgy of eschatology, namely that of making it necessary and prior to doctrine and interpretation itself. This is not even Reformed, much less acceptable to Reformed theology.
I was referred to a work by a famous apologist on the matter. If his defense of Post-millennialism was the standard, then Post-millennialism was to be utterly rejected. But, fortunately, I also had access to a more sound defense of Post-millennialism, which did not arrogate too much to the view. So here were two very distinct approaches to Post-millennialism. It was this work that alerted me to these distinctions.
We need to be careful of what we say about these matters when we sit in judgment of others' views. Equivocating on the terms is not a solution to the problem. Certainly, understanding is called for here, especially an understanding of the limitations of the parts of eschatology which are not essential to the faith in comparison to those which may not be denied. When we cross that line, we usually cross more lines than just that one line. There is inherent denial of Christ Himself wrought in the judging of others who bear the marks of the covenant and of faith.
In summary, I think it is important to present day studies on eschatology to mark the difference not merely between the four major views, but also the difference within each view as to its readiness to be submissive to objective Scripture. And I believe that some Pre-millennialists are of this latter sort, and cannot be lumped in with those few who assert too much to the view. The ones you were referring to were the essential Pre-mil, which does not include by necessity all Pre-millennialists. I would make the same distinction for each of the millennial views, including A-millennialism. I am fully within Reformed standards by accepting as serious the belief of a brother in the Pre-millennial view. What I cannot accept is even an A-millennial view which arrogates too much to itself.
I believe this to be in accord with the Reformed standards. This is the stance taken by the Reformed churches. Three views are acceptable to the Reformed faith, as not violating those doctrines which are defined within the confessions of submission to Scripture in the church. They are held in their proper place, though we may disagree with each other, by the grace of God, for our mutual edification.
Thank you for fixing the link, Andrew.
, but he did not conclude that premil is most biblical. (He arrived at a postmil conclusion, but I don't necessarily agree with all of his reasoning.)
