One inconsistency regarding the PB rules

Discussion in 'FAQ & Rules' started by YXU, Oct 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. YXU

    YXU Puritan Board Freshman

    Rev. Keister
    38. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
    39. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
    40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
    41. And shall give account of their own works.
    42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
    43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

    I don't quite understand your description of the possible solution. Can you state it in a easier way?

    I believe the Creed natrualy teaches that the last judgment follows immediately Christ's coming, and the ressurection happens the same time at His coming. Premil's white throne judgment happens 1000 years after Christ's coming, and premil's rapture is not the the rising of all men. I believe the scriptual support for our belief is simple, II Peter 3:10. I don't know how premil will can reconcile their problems while remain faithful to II Peter 3:10.

    Regards,

    Xu
     
  2. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    YX,

    Here is the germane rule, regardless of your agreement that a premil can embrace the Athanasian creed:

    You're a bit of an enigma to me. You note that English is not your first language and that you're a layman still learning some things about Christian theology/history but then you interact with some ministers who are well schooled and have a mature grasp of those things and then you argue with them to make your view of the creed and the Church's history of creeds the normative view.

    In other words, you admit to a basic level of ignorance and need to learn but then you won't learn from those you ought to be learning from.

    I could even understand if you came here to begin with and said: "I'm new to this whole thing but this seems inconsistent to me..."

    Instead, you fully conclude the matter, make your view of the Athanasian creed the normative and only acceptable view and then you place that as a template over every pre-mil and tell the board we're inconsistent to have either the Athanasian Creed and should either drop it or drop the pre-mils.

    Then you're challenged on it and say: "Hey guys! My English isn't so good. Go easy on me."

    Dude, you set yourself up to have folks play street ball with you. Some people think I'm being mean. I can live with how they perceive things but I take people as they come to an issue. I'm gentle with some who need it and I'm rough with those that I perceive need it. In matters of calling something heresy and that we should be dropping Creeds or dropping board members then a man has put himself out there to be shown very sharply what the nature of the case really is.
     
  3. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    The reason why the creed is consistent with premillennial interpretation is that the creed does not say that the last judgment immediately follows Christ's coming. The word simply isn't there. Furthermore, it does not tell us which coming of Christ is connected with the judgment. When you add these two factors together, a premillennial interpretation is clearly consistent with the creed.
     
  4. JohnV

    JohnV Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    YXU:

    I didn't look at that other thread. Nor am I a Pre-millennialist. I think that I'm beginning to understand what you're saying.

    You're not the first, nor likely the last, to see peculiarities in others' views on things. I have a few such notions myself. But maybe you don't know about some of the things that we have grown to take for granted. The millennium is an example of one such thing.

    First, I would tend to agree that Pre-millennialists appear to be making a mistake. But I don't know their view that well. I tend towards the Amillennial view, but I've learned to be more careful about saying that I'm an Amillennialist. Some think that this means that I subconsciously read Amillennialism into every text that I read, and that's hardly the case. I know how to read the Bible, and I wouldn't do such a thing.

    In the same way, I think it is fair to assume that the sensible Pre-millennialist does not presume his millennial view into every text that he reads from the Bible, but is willing to let the Spirit lead him into understanding, his own notions notwithstanding. And in so doing he has come to think that Pre-millennialism is the right view. Well, I think he's wrong, but that's just my thinking. I have to understand that that is all it is, my understanding.

    Just because he comes to a different millennnial view doesn't necessarily mean that he's denying any part of the Athanasian Creed. He may understand it differently than you, and you have to try to understand how he comes to that before you can criticize him. And even then, this is about something that is not very important in the Reformed framework.

    It comes at the end of doing theology, not at the beginning, so if he makes a mistake here it really doesn't effect anything that comes before it. So it has been a careful judgment in the Reformed circles not to pass judgment on anyone for his millennial views. When someone intentionally puts it before some more basic tenet of the faith, then there is a problem. And you might be thinking of it in those terms. You have to understand that well-grounded Pre-millennialists don't do this, and if they do it is not that they meant to do it. It could well be that I am making this mistake myself without knowing it. We've always kept a careful distance between personal views on such things and the more basic things about which we should all agree.

    Does that help?
     
  5. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    And the reason why such an interpretation is reasonable is that after the period in which the Creed was written a vast portion of the Church, if not the majority, was Premillennial. That does not make them right (no majority votes here), but since no one stood up and said: "Hey, you Chilliasts, I understand that a bunch of you are Church Fathers and all, but can't you read the Anathansian Creed? Better repent or face hellfire."
     
  6. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Puritan Board Junior

    XYU,
    I was originally taught that the premillennial dispensational view was the only correct view of endtimes, as a young Christian. It took quite awhile to just learn that view,working through Things To Come by Dwight Pentecost,looking up all the verses, reading commentaries by other premill writers,listening to dozens of Dallas Theological Seminary tapes etc.
    I am thankful for many things I learned by those times of study,by many of those men who were godly men. Despite the error, I was still a believer then.
    The blood of Christ has cleansed me of all sin.
    As I am now thankful that God has providentially used other believer's to challenge my understanding of those issues.
    I am now somewhere between Amill/Postmill. I think of it as Postamillenial:confused:
    XYU, I said that to say this. Jesus saves sinners. Many of these who are saved are discipled by others who might have several areas of defective theology. God used other believer's to help correct by scripture, good books, tapes, etc.
    If someone is holding onto the pre-mill idea, let him or her articulate what they want, then offer scriptural correction:think:
    With the state of the church in the world today, it is most likely that many Christians do not hold anything close to a solid view of endtimes.
    Thankfully they all agree that there is a second coming,and judgment day.
     
  7. MrMerlin777

    MrMerlin777 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    I was about to make the same observation.

    I believe that a modicum of patience is warranted.
     
  8. Barnpreacher

    Barnpreacher Puritan Board Junior

    I am very thankful that YXU took my above post the way it was intended. I certainly didn't intend to be ungracious or impatient with him. I just wanted to share with him what I had to learn before the PB ever really made sense to me. There were some things that I came to find out that I disagreed with many individuals about on the PB. And I voiced my thoughts on some of these things, and not always in the right way. I regret some of the posts that I have made in the past because of my hastiness. I just wanted to make sure YXU took his time with how he voiced his differences. That's why I pointed him to the verse in his signature line. It wasn't because I thought he was being mean spirited about anything.

    I pray YXU finds the answers he is looking for.
     
  9. Barnpreacher

    Barnpreacher Puritan Board Junior

    And we're thankful for the exceptions, Rich. There was much about confessionalism that I failed to understand when I became a member of the PB almost four years ago, but I'm thankful that I was shown grace and patience and have come to learn much about Reformed theology through my interaction here.

    Your above statement about knowing when to keep our opinions to ourselves is kind of like if you want to tell me my car is ugly then go ahead and bring it up. We can discuss that in a civil manner. But if you want to tell me my kids are ugly that is probably best left unsaid.
     
  10. N. Eshelman

    N. Eshelman Puritan Board Senior

    I suspect that this is an area of great interest to our questioning brother. If he has written on this, under the care of Dr. Pipa, I would be most interested in reading such a paper. I hope that the intentions are to advance the Kingdom and to lift up Jesus Christ.
     
  11. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    Hi Xu,

    Others have pointed out that the Creed doesn't speak to the matter of timing: on that question, you are drawing an inference, but I think it's straining too hard to state that it rules out differences over manners of timing. But I don't recall seeing this very simple observation on the thread up to this point: for premillenialists, the rapture, etc., are distinct events from the 2nd Coming, but though a long period comes after the 2nd Coming, all of these events are part of one eschatological complex.

    I do think that premillenialism is pernicious; but I don't think that the Athanasian creed rules out the possibility of premillenialists being saved, or even of affirming the Athanasian creed. We probably need to allow for the existence of one of those blessed inconsistencies.
     
  12. Herald

    Herald Administrator Staff Member

    Matthew 23:25,26

    Worth considering.
     
  13. YXU

    YXU Puritan Board Freshman

    Dear Brothers in Christ,

    Here is something for clarification, I examined myself for my shortcomings, I think I can express the same idea in another way, administrator is right, I have language barriers, so I should manage well my wording before I post them to avoid misunderstandings. I am not intended to hurt Christians with premil' views. The argument is purely over the doctrine itself, not the people who hold it. I have close dispensationalist friend who I love because of the spirit of God. I do apologize for those Christian brothers with premil view who are troubled, (this is not my intention).

    I have been received some warm notes with loving spirit and encouragements from brothers of this forum. It is a good forum, and I found a lot of useful materials in it.

    Over the interpretation of this certain creed, I know the timing of the last event is not the argument of the creed but rather the persons of God. But I do believe that the timing of the events are well described in it, although the word immediately was not used, but the same idea was expressed explicitly. I do think this issue is worth thinking of by Christians for the Kingdom's sake.

    Regards,

    Xu
     
  14. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Brethren,

    I sent the following to YXU in a private message, and have obtained his permission to post it here for you all to see. As the sin was public, so should the repentance be.

     
  15. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Professor

    There's something else to be considered that should be part of this mix, Charlie. If you read his bio, you'll notice that he's only been a Christian for three years (since 2005) and that he was saved in a dispensational church; and, in that short time, he has also been growing out of his dispensationalism.

    So, I think there are two things in play here: (1) he's still a brand new baby Christian (especially compared to some of us geezers around here!) and an even brand-newer Reformed Christian. So, as all of us were once, he's in that "everything-is-new-and-wonderful" stage of the Christian llife. So, perhaps the "Reformed cage" concept would be relevant here; (2) it seems obvious, given the newness of his faith and his brief adherance to dispensationalism, that this is the fire the lies behind his rather vivid anti-premillennialism. Perhaps he does not yet realize that it's possible to be premil without being dispensational (dispensationalism really poisoned the premil well 200 years ago).

    Given his background, I think Charlie is right to counsel patience with our brother. A time will come when the Reformed faith won't be new anymore - but it will still be wonderful.
     
  16. DMcFadden

    DMcFadden Puritan Board Doctor

    Brother Xu,

    Thank you for posting on the topic of premillennialism and the issue of creedal consistency. It has been an interesting thread. brother. Greco stated what I intended to advance, namely, that if your interpretation of a creed rules out of bounds many of those who were THE leaders of the church at the time, it is most probably an incorrect interpretation. As both Fred and Lane have observed, historic premillennialism (along with postmillennialism and amillennialism) has a long and respected history as orthodox. The protests of various church leaders against "chiliasm" seemed more directed at heresy than against millennialism per se.

    As R.G. Clouse observed in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,

    The problem the Reformers had will millennial views seems inextricably linked to their reactions to Anabaptists.

    Again, Clouse observes,
    Xu, I was an historic premillennarian for most of my life. It was only when considering the issue afresh and beginning to read more widely in the eschatological literature, that it became increasingly clear to me that the premil view represented an erroneous reading of the scriptures. However, remember the words of the Westminster Divine, Edmund Calamy (1600-1666) who said: “A man may hold an error & yet not be an heritique.”
     
  17. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    Thanks YX for the clarification.

    For the record (as I told you in PM), I wasn't really ever angry with you nor did I post the things I did out of contempt.

    Call it a cultural thing for me but I think men can often learn something if we are really challenged to account for things and certain pretenses are stripped away. Stress has a way of sharpening thinking.

    Call it the "dodgeball lowers self esteem" debate but I believe that certain things build character. No matter what the intent is, some will always perceive the approach as being impatient or mean but for those who are willing to be challenged, it has a steeling quality that mollycoddling will never produce.

    I think you're an intelligent man and, since you came to the issue directly and aggressively, I was aggressive in directing your attention to the problem of approach. I, for one, appreciate your willingness to examine perceptions because many simply take the "...well Luther and Calvin called people idiots so why can't I..." approach.

    Finally, we discussed this entire subject in the backchannel and agree that the subject itself is not taboo. In other words, the problem with this thread in particular is that it initially focuses on changing rules to the forum or getting rid of members. The real issue is whether or not a person can really harmonize the two positions. That's a good question and should be considered.
     
  18. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    XU:


    Welcome to this board (I have not yet welcomed you), you have a sharp mind and I think you will be quite a blessing here.


    This has really been a great thread because it shows how conflict is handled and also more fully how the PB works. Also, I think Xu's points are mostly valid, just framed in a controversial way...which, does did reader attention and promote interaction if nothing else.


    I would like to thank Pastor Fred for once again being a shining example to me...how I would love to have that man to mentor me in my youthful foolishness!
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page