Fed Up With Eschatological & Apologetica Dogmatism

[Robert Truelove]

I see then.....um....to clarify my previous post; no, I am not in basic agreement with you.

To be honest with you, your view seems to put the authority of the church over the Scriptures. If I can only KNOW what the scriptures teach on a given subject because of the confessional interpretation of the church, then the authority ultimately resides with the church and her confessions; which is contrary to the Westminster Confession itself as it subordinates itself to the Scriptures in the first chapter.

I have no problem whosoever with teaching that I think the A-Mil view is the biblical one and giving my biblical reasons...and then being gracious with those who hold another view; not making it a matter of contention.

Another example...I believe that 1 Corinthians 11 clearly teaches that a woman ought to have her head covered in corporate worship. This is nowhere in the confession but it is crystal clear to me in the Scriptures. I don't need a confessional statement to know what this passage means (even if others disagree with me).

For the record, I don't hand out hats at the door to ladies who come in without one nor do I make it a mandatory requirement. I let each be persuaded in their own mind but no one doubts their pastor's view on the subject.

I am commanded to teach the whole counsel of God, not the whole counsel of the Westminster Confession. Just because I teach a thing to be so from the Scriptures does not mean I have to require that everyone agree with me. Now should I teach something contrary to the confession without first being granted the exception by presbytery, then I am in trouble with my ordination vows, but that is an entirely different matter.

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 see then.....um....to clarify my previous post; no, I am not in basic agreement with you.

To be honest with you, your view seems to put the authority of the church over the Scriptures. If I can only KNOW what the scriptures teach on a given subject because of the confessional interpretation of the church, then the authority ultimately resides with the church and her confessions; which is contrary to the Westminster Confession itself as it subordinates itself to the Scriptures in the first chapter.

Not at all. The Confessions are completely subject to the Word of God. They only state what the Word of God makes clear to us, nothing more. I am saying that we are only AUTHORIZED to teach what the Church witnesses. The Spirit works through the Church, and by her through her ordained ministers. I am advocating here confessional integrity and confessional submission to the Scriptures.

I have no problem whosoever with teaching that I think the A-Mil view is the biblical one and giving my biblical reasons...and then being gracious with those who hold another view; not making it a matter of contention.

Does the Bible teach optional doctrines?

I am commanded to teach the whole counsel of God, not the whole counsel of the Westminster Confession. Just because I teach a thing to be so from the Scriptures does not mean I have to require that everyone agree with me. Now should I teach something contrary to the confession without first being granted the exception by presbytery, then I am in trouble with my ordination vows, but that is an entirely different matter.

Is Amillennialism part of the whole counsel of God. I believe Gentry would disagree with you. And I believe that Jacob would disagree with you. Gentry believes that Postmillennnialism is part of the whole counsel of God; and Jacob believes that Premillennialism is part of the whole counsel of God. Or do you, Gentry, and Jacob believe that all three are part of the whole counsel of God?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I don't think we disagree about the fact that we do not know which view is right, because you say that you allow others their differing views. That is, you are not saying that they are going against God, but that they are going with their own good conscience. And a good conscience can accept any one of the three views. That's what you're saying, so it must be that you cannot be dogmatic about your view, though you yourself are convinced of your own. And I don't think that you would say that the Bible teaches optional doctrines: doctrines you can either take or leave, or believe something entire different if you want. If I hear you right, you are saying that a minister may preach something that isn't necessarily true, but it's OK to do so because he is convinced in himself that it is true, and that that is enough reason to preach it.

 

[JohnV]

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

 

[RamistThomist]

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. I thought that the church hadn't come to a specific view, but yet here you say that it was the church's teaching. You are being inconsistent.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Just because I can be gracious with someone on a biblical subject I differ with them on does not mean I am admitting that differing views are equally right or acceptable. Rather, love 'covers a multitude of sins' (including mine where I err).

Also, in answer to...

"If I hear you right, you are saying that a minister may preach something that isn't necessarily true, but it's OK to do so because he is convinced in himself that it is true, and that that is enough reason to preach it."

You are not hearing me right at all. If I am convinced from the Scriptures that a thing is true, I should preach it. Not because it is necessarily true, but because I believe in good faith form the Word of God that it is indeed true. However, I should have discernment over secondaries versus weightier matters when it comes to what I see versus how another differing brother may view the subject.

I have not been able to reconcile all of your comments. I still don't see how you escape the conclusion that a doctrine should only be reckoned true because the church has deemed it so?

I see then.....um....to clarify my previous post; no, I am not in basic agreement with you.

To be honest with you, your view seems to put the authority of the church over the Scriptures. If I can only KNOW what the scriptures teach on a given subject because of the confessional interpretation of the church, then the authority ultimately resides with the church and her confessions; which is contrary to the Westminster Confession itself as it subordinates itself to the Scriptures in the first chapter.

Not at all. The Confessions are completely subject to the Word of God. They only state what the Word of God makes clear to us, nothing more. I am saying that we are only AUTHORIZED to teach what the Church witnesses. The Spirit works through the Church, and by her through her ordained ministers. I am advocating here confessional integrity and confessional submission to the Scriptures.

I have no problem whosoever with teaching that I think the A-Mil view is the biblical one and giving my biblical reasons...and then being gracious with those who hold another view; not making it a matter of contention.

Does the Bible teach optional doctrines?

I am commanded to teach the whole counsel of God, not the whole counsel of the Westminster Confession. Just because I teach a thing to be so from the Scriptures does not mean I have to require that everyone agree with me. Now should I teach something contrary to the confession without first being granted the exception by presbytery, then I am in trouble with my ordination vows, but that is an entirely different matter.

Is Amillennialism part of the whole counsel of God. I believe Gentry would disagree with you. And I believe that Jacob would disagree with you. Gentry believes that Postmillennnialism is part of the whole counsel of God; and Jacob believes that Premillennialism is part of the whole counsel of God. Or do you, Gentry, and Jacob believe that all three are part of the whole counsel of God?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I don't think we disagree about the fact that we do not know which view is right, because you say that you allow others their differing views. That is, you are not saying that they are going against God, but that they are going with their own good conscience. And a good conscience can accept any one of the three views. That's what you're saying, so it must be that you cannot be dogmatic about your view, though you yourself are convinced of your own. And I don't think that you would say that the Bible teaches optional doctrines: doctrines you can either take or leave, or believe something entire different if you want. If I hear you right, you are saying that a minister may preach something that isn't necessarily true, but it's OK to do so because he is convinced in himself that it is true, and that that is enough reason to preach it.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I think you guys need to put eschatology on the same level of seriousness as the Bible does. Eschatology is not treated in the Bible as something whereby we can all disagree on as long as we hold the essentials.

With all the learning and scholarship that the church has been privy too we should have elevated eschatology to the level of orthodoxy that the 1st century Christians held.

Eschatology was so serious that Jesus severely rebuked the Apostles for their carnal interpretation of the Messianic Kingdom, and He promptly rejected those who would have made Him king in this carnal sense.

 

[RamistThomist]

1 John 2:27

27 The anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you don't need anyone to teach you. Instead, His anointing teaches you about all things, (AN) and is true and is not a lie; just as it has taught you, remain in Him.

20 But you have an anointing (AF) from the Holy One, (AG) and you have all knowledge.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think you guys need to put eschatology on the same level of seriousness as the Bible does. Eschatology is not treated in the Bible as something whereby we can all disagree on as long as we hold the essentials.

With all the learning and scholarship that the church has been privy too we should have elevated eschatology to the level of orthodoxy that the 1st century Christians held.

Eschatology was so serious that Jesus severely rebuked the Apostles for their carnal interpretation of the Messianic Kingdom, and He promptly rejected those who would have made Him king in this carnal sense.

This is what I take seriously:

Chapter XXXII
Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead

I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:1 but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them:2 the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.3 And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.4 Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.

II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:5 and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.6

III. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.7

Chapter XXXIII
Of the Last Judgment

I. God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ,1 to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father.2 In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged,3 but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.4

II. The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.5

III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity:6 so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.7

As to more specifics that can be fit to the same above, I don't find those issues to be serious enough to destroy a Church body over as long as they hold to the above.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Jacob While those scriptures are all well and good, we have to acknowledge the fact that the first century Christians had the perfect view of eschatology which was lost. This is made necessary by the multitude of millennial positions that are available today and the fact that when the Gospels and the Epistles were written they were written with explicit and implicit assumptions.

I think we have done enough scholarship and research to have rediscovered the general purview of eschatology the first century Christians had, and because of this it is high time we elevate this doctrine to the level of orthodoxy.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

While those scriptures are all well and good, we have to acknowledge the fact that the first century Christians had the perfect view of eschatology which was lost.

I don't acknowledge that at all. Have you read 2 Thessalonians. There was confusion about eschatology even within Paul's lifetime. The early Church did not have a pristine understanding of doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I was just noting the other day that I'm thankful they did not as it was the cause of so many letters to the Churches that form our Scriptures that are, in large measure, correctives to faulty doctrines that rose up even within a few years of Paul's ministry.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

While those scriptures are all well and good, we have to acknowledge the fact that the first century Christians had the perfect view of eschatology which was lost.

I don't acknowledge that at all. Have you read 2 Thessalonians. There was confusion about eschatology even within Paul's lifetime. The early Church did not have a pristine understanding of doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I was just noting the other day that I'm thankful they did not as it was the cause of so many letters to the Churches that form our Scriptures that are, in large measure, correctives to faulty doctrines that rose up even within a few years of Paul's ministry.

Only the Thessalonians seemed to have the problem. And Paul when he tried to clarify did not go into a major theological treatise as per Romans. Thessalonians are amongst the shortest letters he ever wrote. Anyway I still I think there was a consensus in the first century which included many details as to eschatology. I believe this consensus was gradually lost as the apostles died whereby many "opinions" got seeped into sound doctrine.

 

[RamistThomist]

I just wanted to use the phrase "anointing."

 

[JohnV]

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. I thought that the church hadn't come to a specific view, but yet here you say that it was the church's teaching. You are being inconsistent.

I don't understand. What's inconsistent? What specific view has the church come to other than distinquishing between doctrine and adiaphora?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

While those scriptures are all well and good, we have to acknowledge the fact that the first century Christians had the perfect view of eschatology which was lost.

I don't acknowledge that at all. Have you read 2 Thessalonians. There was confusion about eschatology even within Paul's lifetime. The early Church did not have a pristine understanding of doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I was just noting the other day that I'm thankful they did not as it was the cause of so many letters to the Churches that form our Scriptures that are, in large measure, correctives to faulty doctrines that rose up even within a few years of Paul's ministry.

Only the Thessalonians seemed to have the problem. And Paul when he tried to clarify did not go into a major theological treatise as per Romans. Thessalonians are amongst the shortest letters he ever wrote. Anyway I still I think there was a consensus in the first century which included many details as to eschatology. I believe this consensus was gradually lost as the apostles died whereby many "opinions" got seeped into sound doctrine.

And you are getting this...where? What 1st Century writings are you referring to that would give you this idea of doctrinal consensus?

That would be fascinating given the litany of other problems they're having with all sort of other problems in the early Church. The 1st Century Church is hardly a pristine Church. You really think the Church in Galatia had every other doctrine correct but just gooned up the Gospel. Corinth is fine once they figure out how to love each other. Collose is fine except for that problem with gnosticism. But, AT LEAST THEY ALL HAVE THE PROPER ESCHATOLOGY! Phew! That was a close one.

Even within Revelation you have Churches going off the reservation with a myriad of problems.

 

[RamistThomist]

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. I thought that the church hadn't come to a specific view, but yet here you say that it was the church's teaching. You are being inconsistent.

I don't understand. What's inconsistent? What specific view has the church come to other than distinquishing between doctrine and adiaphora?

Elsewhere you state the church should side on millennial views. Then you state:

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

Do you see it?

 

[JohnV]

Do you mean, Keon, that part of the Bible has gone missing? Has part of the doctrine delivered to the saints not bee preserved? Is that what you're saying?

 

[JohnV]

I don't understand. What's inconsistent? What specific view has the church come to other than distinquishing between doctrine and adiaphora?

Elsewhere you state the church should side on millennial views. Then you state:

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

Do you see it?

No, I don't see it. What I said was that if the Church knew which was true they would surely stand on that truth, and not allow views that differ. But the Church doesn't know. She does not take sides because of the fact that it is not known which it true.

Again, I don't believe we differ here. If your view were right it would be simple matter of proving it so, and the Church would be convinced, and then it would be doctrine for everyone. No, what we're differing on is something else.

It seems to me that we're not differing on adiaphora either. No one has had any objections to my calling the specific millennial views adiaphora. Maybe our difference is that I mark a clear line between doctrine and adiaphora so as not to mix the two, and you don't.

 

[RamistThomist]

But the Church doesn't know. She does not take sides because of the fact that it is not known which it true.

Again, I don't believe we differ here. If your view were right it would be simple matter of proving it so, and the Church would be convinced, and then it would be doctrine for everyone. No, what we're differing on is something else.

But you just said:

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

 

[JohnV]

Just because I can be gracious with someone on a biblical subject I differ with them on does not mean I am admitting that differing views are equally right or acceptable. Rather, love 'covers a multitude of sins' (including mine where I err).

The Church does that: each view is equally acceptable. You can't go against your church on that.

Though love covers a multitude of sins, a differing view is still a sin? So you have it right from Christ Himself? Gentry is in sin for being Postmillennial? Is it not possible that you err in "knowing" that Amillennnialism is the only right and true millennial view?

Also, in answer to...

"If I hear you right, you are saying that a minister may preach something that isn't necessarily true, but it's OK to do so because he is convinced in himself that it is true, and that that is enough reason to preach it."

You are not hearing me right at all. If I am convinced from the Scriptures that a thing is true, I should preach it. Not because it is necessarily true, but because I believe in good faith form the Word of God that it is indeed true. However, I should have discernment over secondaries versus weightier matters when it comes to what I see versus how another differing brother may view the subject.

I have not been able to reconcile all of your comments. I still don't see how you escape the conclusion that a doctrine should only be reckoned true because the church has deemed it so?

OK, now I hear you. I think I've understood this already, but now I know. You are saying that if it's good enough to convince you, then that is good enough to say it is from God Himself. It is either that or you use the word "true" to convey the idea of "as close as we subjective people will ever know something to be true".


I don't say that a doctrine should only be reckoned true because the Church has deemed it so. I'm saying a doctrine should only be reckoned true if the Bible says it, and the Spirit witnesses it to the plurality of elders of the Church. Not by one man, but by the Church.
[/QUOTE]

 

[JohnV]

But the Church doesn't know. She does not take sides because of the fact that it is not known which it true.

Again, I don't believe we differ here. If your view were right it would be simple matter of proving it so, and the Church would be convinced, and then it would be doctrine for everyone. No, what we're differing on is something else.

But you just said:

By the way, I side with Amillennialism. I wouldn't let my personal view interfere with doctrine, though.

And it isn't just that this is my view. I was taught it by my church: it was the church's teaching.

I see what you mean. Sorry. My apologies. I wasn't very clear. You misunderstood because I didn't say it the right way. You're right if you read it that way, and I was wrong to write it that way. It was not what I meant.

I'm talking about the separation of doctrine from adiaphora, the obligation upon the elders to set aside their own views and protect each one's liberty of conscience equally, and that such issues should never be used to unsettle the church. These were what I was taught. I was not taught my millennial view, nor was it ever obligated upon me, not even by default. I came to it on my own, and that's all it will ever be. The church I grew up in was careful to instruct me to allow the Word to teach itself, and not impose anything upon it. If the Bible does not teach one specific millennial view, then it is wrong to make it a grid by which to understand the Word. The Word interprets itself without my adding my views. That is what the church taught me.

 

[BrianLanier]

Hi John,

I have been following this discussion and wanted to chime in on this particular post.

I'm talking about the separation of doctrine from adiaphora, the obligation upon the elders to set aside their own views and protect each one's liberty of conscience equally, and that such issues should never be used to unsettle the church.

I'm not exactly sure how you are using the term adiaphora here. It seems that you are saying that a particular millennial view is *not* a doctrine and therefore should be separated as adiaphora. But if that is what you're saying, then it is incoherent since doctrine = df. teaching or principle--which certainly a millennial view would qualify.

It would be helpful if you would clarify what you mean by adiaphora in general and the separation of it from doctrine in particular (if such a separation can be coherent since whatever is meant by adiaphora is certainly a principle or teaching, i.e., a doctrine).

If the Bible does not teach one specific millennial view, then it is wrong to make it a grid by which to understand the Word.

This hypothetical proposition is indeed true. However, it is not helpful in the least, since it needs at least two more premises to make a meaningful argument:

(2) The Bible does not teach one specific millennial view,
so,
(3) It is wrong to make a millennial view a grid by which to understand the Word.

But here premise (2) is just begging the question against anyone who advocates a particular millennial view. And of course the burden of proof seems almost unbearable for its advocates, since to know it would involve: (1) demonstrating each particular millennial view to be in error (but of course, not all adherents to the broad millennial positions agree), and (2) that no one particular millennial view *could* be developed by anyone that would be an accurate description of the Biblical data. I don't see any good reason to believe that this could be done.

Maybe you meant something else, and if so I apologize.

Brian

 

[Anton Bruckner]

And you are getting this...where? What 1st Century writings are you referring to that would give you this idea of doctrinal consensus?

.

I basethis on the whole New Testament, and the fact that Jesus expounded the whole testament and how it relates to Him in its fulfillment. (The Olivet Discourse, on the road to Emmaus) The Apostles received from the Master, THE comprehensive interpretation of eschatology, and it is this interpretation that the apostles disseminated. I do not believe and I refuse to believe that Jesus left the apostles in a quandry of premill, postmill or amill interpretations.

The very idea of differing interpretations were promptly rejected when Jesus upbraided the pharasaical interpretations of the law and the prophets which inevitably included eschatology.

 

[MW]

JohnV -- If one denied a doctrine in the maintenance of an adiaphora, would that be cause of legitimate dispute? E.g., the doctrine that Christ sits at the right hand of God till all His enemies are made His footstool. If premillennialism denied this point, would it be cause of concern? Again, Christ's kingdom is spiritual. If a postmillannialist denied this point, would it be cause of concern? You are an amillennialist for a reason, and the reason is undoubtedly due to your consistent maintenance of these doctrines, not to any adiaphoric private interpretation.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

And you are getting this...where? What 1st Century writings are you referring to that would give you this idea of doctrinal consensus?

.

I basethis on the whole New Testament, and the fact that Jesus expounded the whole testament and how it relates to Him in its fulfillment. (The Olivet Discourse, on the road to Emmaus) The Apostles received from the Master, THE comprehensive interpretation of eschatology, and it is this interpretation that the apostles disseminated. I do not believe and I refuse to believe that Jesus left the apostles in a quandry of premill, postmill or amill interpretations.

The very idea of differing interpretations were promptly rejected when Jesus upbraided the pharasaical interpretations of the law and the prophets which inevitably included eschatology.

...and the Gospel. My point is that, within a decade of Paul clearly teaching the Gospel, you had Churches completely abandoning a tenet of the Christian faith.

Hence, I don't disagree with you that the Scriptures teach a thing and that the thing is important but to claim that the 1st Century Church uniformly possessed doctrinal consensus on doctrine is repudiated by the pages of Scripture itself. To note that Thessalonica is the only Church mentioned with that problem belies a larger problem about scattered doctrinal confusion.

I'm not arguing, incidentally, that we shouldn't strive for unity on such matters but I consider the Gospel to be perspicuous in a way that eschatology is not. If the heart of man can dork up the Gospel then it certainly can dork up less clearly expounded doctrines.

 

[JohnV]

I thought I understood what we were disagreeing about, but now I wonder. What's so hard about this? Maybe I'm not getting some things. Such as:

- When did any one of the millennial views become a known teaching? Why didn't I know about it?

- If it is known which view is right, why do the churches still allow people to believe the other views equally? When did it happen that you may contradict the Bible in good faith?

- If one minister believes one view, and another one of the other views, and they teach each one his own view as Bible doctrine, which minister is being guided by the Holy Spirit? If it is known which one is right, why is this even allowed to happen?

- If the Spirit has guided the Church through the plurality of elders all these centuries, when did it happen that individuals were given the right to declare doctrine on their own?

- If it's true that theology rests only on the sure foundation of the Word, and that one of the millennial views is part of that sure foundation, why is that not explicitly stated in our Confessions?

- And why am I left out in the cold with the old sure foundations which did not include a millennial view? When did this all happen anyways?

The only way that I can make sense out of this is if I think that all theology is finally just as subjective as the millennial views, and that's why they're put on equal footing. One can put the covenant as the foundation for understanding the Bible, or one can put a millennial view underneath it to understand it; there is no difference in certainty either way.

To me, theology is not less than science. In science you can only build conclusions on sure and repeatable certainties; a conclusion that rests on a hypothesis is nothing more than a hypothesis; a conclusion that rests on individual conviction is nothing more than an individual conviction. A sure conclusion can only come from sure premises. Philosophy is the same. That's what all the fuss is about when it comes to the Ontological Argument, that it can never attain objective status because it includes even the smallest part of it as subjective in the premise, and therefore the conclusion may never be regarded as anything more than subjective.

Why is theology less than that? Why may we build a "Thus saith the Lord" out of a "this is my conclusion, and I'm pretty sure even though the Church isn't."? Why may we get away with things in theology that we wouldn't dream of trying to get away with in science or philosophy?

These are just a few of my thoughts. I thought this was simple and basic: the Church does not define which millennial view is the one the Bible teaches because she does not know; ministers do not assert doctrines on their own; ergo, ministers have no place to assert that their millennial view is the one the Bible teaches.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Exactly 'what church' are we to seek the witness of the Spirit through the plurality of elders? Would that be my denomination (of which I am an ordained minister because "I" believe our overall understanding and practice to be the most biblical)? Another? The consensus of all elders cross-denominationally? If the later, than why are we not all Arminians because that is the overwhelming consensus among Protestants today.

Perhaps it is the historical consensus we should seek? Even here there is no uniformity on many matters but you have differing confessions teaching in places contrary positions.

Your particular solution to the problem of autonomy (which seems to be the real issue here) can only be consistently held of one is with Rome (and is willing to buy their recasting of church history--since Rome has indeed progressed along a series of innovations over the centuries).

Finally, if you want to hold a position that is consistent with Protestantism (and the consensus of our elders both historically and contemporaneously), you must start and end with the scriptures. I do not hold to the Westminster Confession because it is anyone else's view. I hold to it because, I see it a faithful summation of the doctrines in the Scriptures that it addresses (and I do not believe it addresses all of the doctrine in the Scriptures and neither did it's framers).

I don't say that a doctrine should only be reckoned true because the Church has deemed it so. I'm saying a doctrine should only be reckoned true if the Bible says it, and the Spirit witnesses it to the plurality of elders of the Church. Not by one man, but by the Church.

 

[JohnV]

Exactly 'what church' are we to seek the witness of the Spirit through the plurality of elders? Would that be my denomination (of which I am an ordained minister because "I" believe our overall understanding and practice to be the most biblical)? Another? The consensus of all elders cross-denominationally? If the later, than why are we not all Arminians because that is the overwhelming consensus among Protestants today.

Perhaps it is the historical consensus we should seek? Even here there is no uniformity on many matters but you have differing confessions teaching in places contrary positions.

Your particular solution to the problem of autonomy (which seems to be the real issue here) can only be consistently held of one is with Rome (and is willing to buy their recasting of church history--since Rome has indeed progressed along a series of innovations over the centuries).

Finally, if you want to hold a position that is consistent with Protestantism (and the consensus of our elders both historically and contemporaneously), you must start and end with the scriptures. I do not hold to the Westminster Confession because it is anyone else's view. I hold to it because, I see it a faithful summation of the doctrines in the Scriptures that it addresses (and I do not believe it addresses all of the doctrine in the Scriptures and neither did it's framers).

So there are other doctrines? Like, for example, three mutually exclusive millennial views? Whether it's your denomination or mine, they allow all three. Are all three doctrine, then?

You don't solve the problem, Robert. And misrepresenting the argument doesn't change that.

Westminster was the last Great Assembly of a unified Reformed Church. There were representatives there from all over the Reformed world at the time. From their great confessional documents we derive the understanding that none of the three views, in their basic form, violate the teachings of Scripture. That's as far as any denomination has gone.

You still have to justify the fact that a single individual has a right to declare something as doctrinal. That's never been the case in Reformed ecclesiology. You say you have the right to declare Amillennialism as doctrine, and Ken Gentry has the right to declare Postmillennialism as doctrine. How do you explain that? One of you has no right to declare it; or neither of you has a right if Jacob is right; but it can't be that all three have that right. At least two of you would be declaring something that God does not agree with. Which one is it? And who says so?

 

[Robert Truelove]

From a Protestant perspective, I think you are misusing the term 'doctrine'. You seem to be using this term not in its proper sense (a teaching), but as a 'dogma' (official church teaching).

If you were to modify your position to state that an individual does not have the authority to establish what is 'dogma', I would be in agreement with you and this is where early on I thought we might have been on the same page.

In regards to the current thread, no one should hold up any one millennial position as 'dogma', that is 'the official teaching of the church', because, as you have noted, the church has no such official teaching. This is not that same thing as to say an elder cannot teach his understanding of his doctrinal views on subjects like the millennial issue, just that he ought not to make it an issue of dogma. This is no subtle difference.

This is the heart of the problem in much of the disunity in Reformed churches. People want to make 'dogma' out of doctrines that ought not bear that weight. And thus the reason for the subject line of this thread, "Fed Up With Eschatological & Apologetical DOGMATISM".

Westminster was the last Great Assembly of a unified Reformed Church. There were representatives there from all over the Reformed world at the time. From their great confessional documents we derive the understanding that none of the three views, in their basic form, violate the teachings of Scripture. That's as far as any denomination has gone.

This is not true. Just because the confession does not make any of the 3 millennial positions a confessional issue, does not by default result in its teaching that none of the three views violate Scripture. You are making the confession say something it simply isn't saying (by pointing out what it is not saying ).

Finally, some denominations have indeed gone much further than the confession on this. The RPCUS, for example, requires the Post-Mil, Presup, & Theonomic views to be held by all of its officers and these views are the official doctrine of that denomination.

Exactly 'what church' are we to seek the witness of the Spirit through the plurality of elders? Would that be my denomination (of which I am an ordained minister because "I" believe our overall understanding and practice to be the most biblical)? Another? The consensus of all elders cross-denominationally? If the later, than why are we not all Arminians because that is the overwhelming consensus among Protestants today.

Perhaps it is the historical consensus we should seek? Even here there is no uniformity on many matters but you have differing confessions teaching in places contrary positions.

Your particular solution to the problem of autonomy (which seems to be the real issue here) can only be consistently held of one is with Rome (and is willing to buy their recasting of church history--since Rome has indeed progressed along a series of innovations over the centuries).

Finally, if you want to hold a position that is consistent with Protestantism (and the consensus of our elders both historically and contemporaneously), you must start and end with the scriptures. I do not hold to the Westminster Confession because it is anyone else's view. I hold to it because, I see it a faithful summation of the doctrines in the Scriptures that it addresses (and I do not believe it addresses all of the doctrine in the Scriptures and neither did it's framers).

So there are other doctrines? Like, for example, three mutually exclusive millennial views? Whether it's your denomination or mine, they allow all three. Are all three doctrine, then?

You don't solve the problem, Robert. And misrepresenting the argument doesn't change that.

Westminster was the last Great Assembly of a unified Reformed Church. There were representatives there from all over the Reformed world at the time. From their great confessional documents we derive the understanding that none of the three views, in their basic form, violate the teachings of Scripture. That's as far as any denomination has gone.

You still have to justify the fact that a single individual has a right to declare something as doctrinal. That's never been the case in Reformed ecclesiology. You say you have the right to declare Amillennialism as doctrine, and Ken Gentry has the right to declare Postmillennialism as doctrine. How do you explain that? One of you has no right to declare it; or neither of you has a right if Jacob is right; but it can't be that all three have that right. At least two of you would be declaring something that God does not agree with. Which one is it? And who says so?

 

[JohnV]

From a Protestant perspective, I think you are misusing the term 'doctrine'. You seem to be using this term not in its proper sense (a teaching), but as a 'dogma' (official church teaching).

OK, you guys can stop pulling my leg anytime now.