Fed Up With Eschatological & Apologetica Dogmatism

[Robert Truelove]

I'm not Postmil, or Thenomic but many would hear some of my sermons and swear I was both (as if only a postmil/theonomist can preach that those in authority will have to answer for their legislation by what God has revealed in His word or that the Kingdom of God is a victorious kingdom). I employ presuppositional apologetics often when dealing with the lost but I am uncertain regarding the claim that takes it from a methodology for apologetics to the bedrock of epistemology. As such, most would not call me a 'true' presuppositionalist (though they might say I am and just don't know it yet ).

Now let me reveal my naiveté. Until a little over a year ago, I had no idea that one's millennial position within Reformed churches was a 'hot' topic ('only Fundamental Independent Baptists are like that', thought silly me). As a previous Reformed Baptist I had enjoyed years of cordial, open discussion with other believers regarding millennial views (both from within my church as well as without). I chalked up divisive dogmatism on this subject to certain brands of Dispensational Baptists.

It had never entered into my mind that some Reformed people frothed at the mouth over differences in apologetics. I knew the different positions but had not yet seen that men from one camp in particular drew daggers over it.

Then one Lord's Day I preached a sermon in favor of the Amil position and to a few men in the church you would have thought I had just sprouted horns, drew out the blazing brand for the administration of the mark of the beast and denied the deity of Christ.

Later in our Q&A session one of these men publicly accused me of teaching 'gnostic' doctrine.

I don't know a single Amil person who does not seek and desire the kingdom to grow on earth as in heaven, nor pray 'thy kingdom come' (the phrase on our church sign-which was of my choosing). Furthermore, I do believe the 'gospel wins in human history', just not in the same manner the Post-Mil position sees it. Finally, the message I taught last year was probably the first time I had ever mentioned any millennial position from the pulpit in 6 years. It isn't a hobby horse for me.

Regarding my message, I taught nothing you wouldn't read in well respected polemics in favor of Amil. As a matter of fact, the main point of my message was how that Post-Mil tends to place the emphasis of the eschatological hope of the church in the eventual domination of the Earth by the gospel, whereas Amil places the eschatological emphasis on the 2nd coming of Christ (the point was one of emphasis, not that Postl-Mil denies the 2nd Coming) and that I saw the Amil emphasis to be the more biblical.

Since this event, I have sadly confirmed that this sort of eschatological and epistemological (in regards to apologetics) dogmatism is rampant within certain sectors of the Reformed community.

I must admit, previous experiences greatly influence my thinking on these subjects. People like I describe above remind me of many I knew from years ago when I was an Fundamental Independent Baptist (a brief jaunt in my early days as a Christian). "Buddy, if you ain't no Pre-Trib, Premiller, hit the road Jack, and don't ya come back."

It is my prayer that the Reformed community will return to an open, loving spirit in regards to the diversity among us as regards eschatological & epistemological differences as well as differences concerning civil government.

 

[RamistThomist]

I understand. An anti-theonomist theologian called me a terrorist in public.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

There is going to be dogmatism to one degree or another in any position one comes across. That is just the nature of the case.

Anyway with respect to apologetics, you said: "It had never entered into my mind that some Reformed people frothed at the mouth over differences in apologetics. I knew the different positions but had not yet seen that men from one camp in particular drew daggers over it."

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

 

[JohnOwen007]

It is my prayer that the Reformed community will return to an open, loving spirit in regards to the diversity among us as regards eschatological & epistemological differences as well as differences concerning civil government.

It is my prayer that the reformed community will learn to recognize what are central issues and what are peripheral issues, so that we can focus on what's really important rather than devour each other over legitimate differences we are free to have.

 

[Gryphonette]

Amen!!!

 

[Blueridge Believer]

If you're not amill like me you are a heretic!

 

[JonathanHunt]

The only thing sticking with me from your post is the appalling attitude and tone of your church members.

The whole area of endtimes controversies puts me in mind of an anecdote Don Carson used when preaching on 2 Thess. He spoke of a man who was up for ordination and stood in front of a panel of men. One man after another tried to 'work out' his milennial questions. His answer to each one was 'Jesus is coming back' - or something similar and basic. Point being that although he did have a viewpiont, he wasn't willing to argue with his examiners over it nor raise it to a matter of primacy in doctrine.

JH

 

[Answerman]

I understand. An anti-theonomist theologian called me a terrorist in public.

Which just goes to show you how blind they are to their own position. In other words,, he would support terrorizing theonomists. In cases like this, I would graciously defend my position from the Bible and let the onlookers decide who the true terrorist is.

 

[Poimen]

Robert:

First things first- (please forgive me if these seem condescending or trite. They are simple admonitions as a brother in Christ).

1) I am certain that you have done so, but I remind you to pray for these members. And then pray again. And love them!

2) Be careful what and where you write about members of your congregation. You never know who might be reading.

3) Have you brought these matters to your consistory (session)? If the members stumble at the preaching of the word then it is no longer a personal matter. It is one thing to humbly disagree and criticize it is quite another to oppose the minister and the message.

In regards to the content of your letter-

I am sympathetic though I have never had the responses to my (eschatological) sermons that you have. I agree that there is too much dogmatism and not enough dialogue.

Though I am a staunch Amillenialist I have much respect for Postmilllenialism and believe that those brothers, though mistaken, are nonetheless fellow Christians striving to be faithful to God's Word.

 

[Robert Truelove]

In response to comments about my congregation...

None of the people who hold these sorts of views are with us anymore and I have not named names. The letter I cited was private so no one knows the author. I cited it as an example of what I was dealing with.

And I do dearly love these brethren who may have left over these issues and pray God's blessings on them in their new congregations wherever they be. For the record, none of folks in question reported the Millennial issue as their reason for leaving and there were other complications of a practical concern that I won't go into (but legitimate matters that do not reflect negatively in the least on those who left).

In our church today I could have different speakers come and present Historic-Pre, Post, & Amil polemically, critiquing each other and there would be no issue.

 

[Poimen]

Sorry Robert. I wasn't aware.

 

[Robert Truelove]

I want to add as an non-theonomist...I find the invectives against my theonomist brethren to be just as offensive.

There really is room for the both of us within our Reformed churches.

I understand. An anti-theonomist theologian called me a terrorist in public.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Caleb,

I am referring to those who are Presuppositional who have made the issue of apologetics a matter of orthodoxy. The RPCUS for instance will not even ordain a man if he is not Presuppositional in apologetics. I have seen this sort of dogmatism throughout the Reformed community.

I first encountered it as a Reformed Baptist. The pastor presented two fundamental options...you could be a Presuppositionalist or a humanist moron (I jest but not much).

It just riles me to see things that are secondary or I think in these cases even tertiary raised out of their rightful sphere of importance. The church is being unnecessarily divided over issues that in the theological realm are about as important as our childhood discussions over whether or not we could better beat up our brother if we wore the Superman Under-Roos versus the Bat Man Under-Roos.

There is going to be dogmatism to one degree or another in any position one comes across. That is just the nature of the case.

Anyway with respect to apologetics, you said: "It had never entered into my mind that some Reformed people frothed at the mouth over differences in apologetics. I knew the different positions but had not yet seen that men from one camp in particular drew daggers over it."

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

 

[JohnV]

Robert:

My views on this are a bit more pointed, I think. Millennial and apologetical views are ADIAPOHORA. The confessional basis of the church allows for differing personal convictions of conscience on these. That's because the Bible is not clear on these.

The WCF states that the plainer texts should be used to open up to us the less plain texts, not the other way around. Some people are given to making up their minds on such things as their millennial view (let's say from Rev. 20), or their apologetic view (let's say from Rom. 1), and go from there to intepret the rest of Scripture from that standpoint.

The problem is not initially one of dogmatism stemming from one's particular persuasion on these non-binding issues, but one of misplacing one's Biblical predicates. A pastor who preaches the gospel must be careful to preach only that which he is commissioned to preach. He ought not to offend or cause offence. Your own particular convictions on such things should remain with yourself, and not be mixed in with your ministry of the gospel of Christ.

You could be helpful to others in your expertise on such subjects, seeing that it is your place to minister to others; but it should never be in any way that diminishes the respect that is due to those who hold another view in their own conscience. You might disagree with them, but they in turn would disagree with you; your position in the church offers no primacy of your conscience over another's.

 

[RamistThomist]

The difficulty is that we all have views on the above beliefs, and we will get dogmatic on them if pressed, so compromise can only go so far. (I say this actually having changed my beliefs in the middle of debate).

 

[JohnV]

I don't. And I won't. I'll get dogmatic about the place of these, but not about the views themselves. I simply will not let them intrude where they don't belong.

 

[RamistThomist]

And I am not saying we should get dogmatic about the place of them. I don't believe in making premillennialism normative in the life of the church (although I will preach on certain facets of premillennialism which do not violate the Confession).

As for apologetics, I will preach that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and that Christ has made foolish the wisdom of the world. That is presuppositoinalism plain and simple--and I was quoting bible verses.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Help me put feet to what you are saying. Applying your principles to the current discussion, if you were preaching through Revelation and came to chapter 20, what would you do?

I think you are stating my exact thoughts but I want to be sure.

Robert:

My views on this are a bit more pointed, I think. Millennial and apologetical views are ADIAPOHORA. The confessional basis of the church allows for differing personal convictions of conscience on these. That's because the Bible is not clear on these.

The WCF states that the plainer texts should be used to open up to us the less plain texts, not the other way around. Some people are given to making up their minds on such things as their millennial view (let's say from Rev. 20), or their apologetic view (let's say from Rom. 1), and go from there to intepret the rest of Scripture from that standpoint.

The problem is not initially one of dogmatism stemming from one's particular persuasion on these non-binding issues, but one of misplacing one's Biblical predicates. A pastor who preaches the gospel must be careful to preach only that which he is commissioned to preach. He ought not to offend or cause offence. Your own particular convictions on such things should remain with yourself, and not be mixed in with your ministry of the gospel of Christ.

You could be helpful to others in your expertise on such subjects, seeing that it is your place to minister to others; but it should never be in any way that diminishes the respect that is due to those who hold another view in their own conscience. You might disagree with them, but they in turn would disagree with you; your position in the church offers no primacy of your conscience over another's.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have raised that same question time and again. I find nothing dogmatic or unconfessional in saying to my congregation, "I believe this passage teaches _______________. Good Christian men have disagreed with me, and you are free as well, too."

Help me put feet to what you are saying. Applying your principles to the current discussion, if you were preaching through Revelation and came to chapter 20, what would you do?

I think you are stating my exact thoughts but I want to be sure.

Robert:

My views on this are a bit more pointed, I think. Millennial and apologetical views are ADIAPOHORA. The confessional basis of the church allows for differing personal convictions of conscience on these. That's because the Bible is not clear on these.

The WCF states that the plainer texts should be used to open up to us the less plain texts, not the other way around. Some people are given to making up their minds on such things as their millennial view (let's say from Rev. 20), or their apologetic view (let's say from Rom. 1), and go from there to intepret the rest of Scripture from that standpoint.

The problem is not initially one of dogmatism stemming from one's particular persuasion on these non-binding issues, but one of misplacing one's Biblical predicates. A pastor who preaches the gospel must be careful to preach only that which he is commissioned to preach. He ought not to offend or cause offence. Your own particular convictions on such things should remain with yourself, and not be mixed in with your ministry of the gospel of Christ.

You could be helpful to others in your expertise on such subjects, seeing that it is your place to minister to others; but it should never be in any way that diminishes the respect that is due to those who hold another view in their own conscience. You might disagree with them, but they in turn would disagree with you; your position in the church offers no primacy of your conscience over another's.

 

[JohnV]

Help me put feet to what you are saying. Applying your principles to the current discussion, if you were preaching through Revelation and came to chapter 20, what would you do?

I think you are stating my exact thoughts but I want to be sure.

If I were a minister of the Word and in my preaching to my congregation came to Rev. 20 I would make a clear distinction between what the Word of God teaches, which the Church has outlined in her confessions, and that which is a product of my own convictions beyond that point. I would not say that, I would practice it. Since I would be ordained to teach the doctrines of the Bible, I would consider myself confined to teaching only that which is known to be doctrine, and restrain myself from teaching anything that is not a known and confessed doctrine. It is the Church that ordains me by Christ's command, so my commission does not go beyond the Church's directives.

The Church allows for differences of conscience on some matters. On some of those she will not disqualify her ordained officers from their offices, but allow them to be personally convicted of some of those differences. But nowhere has she said that these officers may teach these as Bible doctrine. What she says on that score is that the officers ought to seek the peace of the church, not to unsettle her needlessly, nor to use their offices to lord it over others. Their offices are ones of service. They are offices of authority as well, but only of authority rooted directly in the Word of God; they have no authority to push their own personal convictions upon others, or in any way to use their office as if to lend the authority of God to something the Church has not determined to be from God.

Whether a doctor in the church, a minister, an elder, or an ordinary pew-sitting member, each one's conscience is free to their millennial view within the bounds the denomination has set. That freedom is confessionally granted and sealed. The position of the one whose conscience says one thing does not raise that conscience over someone of lesser position. Each believer as a person is equal. Whatever high position one has makes him no less or more an object of grace. God grants what is needed for the offices He calls people to; He also guides individual consciences of ordinary believers.

If a non-office member were to speak openly about his millennial view, insisting on its Biblical status above the others, he would be considered to be causing strife, unsettling the peace of the church. But it seems that when a minister does the same thing, even using the pulpit so as to imply that he is doing so with the authority of God, no one says anything. Is he not also causing needless strife? The same church, yet in all this the church has not changed her position on the equal acceptability of all three millennial views. Why would it be that a minister may do so but not a non-office member? The WCF makes all consciences equal, and does not single out the consciences of ministers as exceptions.

We are pretty sure that one of the three millennial views must be the case. But what we don't know is whether we understand each one well enough; Christ may come before or after, pre or post, but that does not mean that we have all our ducks in a row in each of these views. Neither do we know which of the views, even in their most basic form, is correct. God has chosen not to reveal that to us.

The Bible is both sufficient in the doctrine of salvation, and it is clear in revealing those doctrines. We must therefore accept that knowing which millennial view is right is not required of us. Neither, then, is it something which ought to be a predisposition or presuppositon to our reading of the Bible. The doctrines of the Bible are to be determined by the clearer passages opening up the less clear passages. Therefore Rev. 20 is not a passage to use to predetermine which millennial view we are going to impose upon other passages of Scripture, so as to put colorings upon the passage, colorings which do not have the authority of the Church or of the Word of God.

If I were a minister of the Word of God preaching on Rev. 20 I might inform the congregation of the three views, if that were appropriate, but I in my preaching would stick to the message that is there, and not go beyond what the Word itself reveals. The message of the gospel would not be changed by my convictions, but instead I would guard that my convictions are always subject to the Word. And so I would also guard the convictions of others, even if they did not agree with me on some of these matters. And finally, I would not betray the trust given to me as to what I am called to; I would not overtly attempt to put God's authority in a place not commissioned to me by either God or the Church. The different millennial views are adiaphora, non-binding matters of personal conscience, conscience which should not be violated; it is my duty to guard that for each member equally as my own: that is part of the Confession, that is part of what I am called to preach and defend, and therefore part that is part of my commission as a minister of the Word. Therefore my commission does not include preaching my own views on the millennium.

 

[JohnV]

I've run out of time. I'll correct my typos in the morning.

 

[JohnV]

OK, Robert. I've done my corrections.

Basically, I would say that it would scare the heck out of me if someone said that my interpretation of the Bible was in any way contingent upon any personal view of my own. To me that's not acceptable for myself. Instead I insist on keeping the convictions demanded of me by the Church separate from the ones that I come to on my own besides those. I would never let the latter have any control over the former. That's the conviction I have as an ordinary member; how much more if I were an officer of the Church.

 

[RamistThomist]

If I were a minister of the Word of God preaching on Rev. 20 I might inform the congregation of the three views, if that were appropriate, but I in my preaching would stick to the message that is there, and not go beyond what the Word itself reveals.

But that forces you to come to the nature of the resurrections, how many they are, and who is ruling. The moment you answer that question you immediately identify yourself as a-/post- or premill. There is no way to get around it.

 

[JohnV]

Is it wrong to say "I don't know" if it is true that I don't know?

 

[CDM]

Is it wrong to say "I don't know" if it is true that I don't know?

If one were about to be ordained as a minister of the Word and Sacrament, he should be fully convinced in his mind of his eschatolical understanding.

We can all agree eschatology is important. That said, I don't see it acceptable that God's minister, a teacher, to answer "I don't know."

 

[JohnV]

If the Church says "I don't know", why shouldn't the minister which the Church ordains? Is he above the Church?

 

[RamistThomist]

If the Church says "I don't know", why shouldn't the minister which the Church ordains? Is he above the Church?

So if I believe I know the truth I should confess ignorance to that?

Few people can consistenly live with logical double standards. Also, very few ordained men will accept your view of "ecclesiastical ignorance." SHould Meredith Kline have publically argued for an Amillennial reading of Revelation 20, if he knew that thousands of Reformed pastors would read his stuff for confirmation of their already thought of and practiced belief?

In short, you are saying that we should say "I know it but I don't know it."

 

[JohnV]

That is a bit strange: their denomination does not know but they do. If Meredith Kline knows that the Amillennial view is right, then he knows that you are wrong, Jacob. Your Premillennial view is unfaithful to the Bible. So is Gentry's Postmillennial view. But although Kline knows that, his denomination doesn't.

It seems to me that it is the denomination that ordains ministers; and it is denominations that may take away that ordination. And denominations do not know. If they allow all three, then they are saying they don't know. Only one can be right. Is this what Meredith Kline is saying too? That all three are allowed? Then he's saying he doesn't know too. Is that what Gentry is saying too, that all three are allowed? Then he's also saying that he doesn't know.

These people are making up their minds, but they're still saying that they don't know. Because if they knew, then they'd be saying that the other views are wrong, that they violate the Bible. Is that what they're saying? Does their denomination know they're saying that?

 

[RamistThomist]

I am hearing "yes" and "no" at the same time. And taht is real easy, too. Amillennialism is the dominant eschatological view in the Reformed church, and your view effectively stifles all communication on the subject, therefore, amillennialism wins the day since it had the most points when time runs out.

And since you are saying that the church doesn't know the truth, but should progress to the truth, wouldn't it be more logical to allow discussion, in formal public settings, for the positions?

Here is how your scenario would work out:

Little Susie: Pastor, is the Bible sufficient for theology?
Pastor: Of course.
Little Susie: Pastor, what does Revelation 20 mean, particularly the two resurrections?
Pastor: I know, but am not allowed to tell you.
Little Susie: Why not?
Pastor: Because the church hasn't come to a consensus on this one.
Little Susie: But doesn't the Bible say something about it?
Pastor: It might.
Little Susie: Won't you help me out?
Pastor: No, sorry.

 

[JohnV]

Jacob:

Robert asked me about my view. It is the one that I was taught. And it is the one that I believe is consistent with the Reformed confessional setting.

I'm not saying anything of the kind that you are suggesting. These are the conclusions you would have to come to with your view, not me.

I am in no way in favour of stifling discussion on it. That's what we're doing now, and I think it is beneficial. Being dogmatic where no dogma exists, that I question.