Premillennialism and the Westminster Confession of Faith

[Baptist-1689er]

Smith
c) Christ comes and reigns here (vs. in heaven) gloriously for a thousand years;

Is there any indication anywhere Mr. Goodwin viewed the "thousand years" figuratively?

Anyone know?

Based on the quote above from "A Glimpse," it would seem the burden of proof would be on those who would attempt to interpret his words in a figurative manner.

 

[MW]

Based on the quote above from "A Glimpse," it would seem the burden of proof would be on those who would attempt to interpret his words in a figurative manner.

His statement in the Ephesians sermons specifically refutes a physical return of Christ to inaugurate the millennium. The statement in the Glimpse nowhere avows a physical return of Christ prior to the millennium. In the absence of all other evidence the only proper conclusion to draw is that Goodwin did not teach that Christ visibly returns before the millennium, or what is today called premillennialism. I don't know too many historians who would pride themselves on following secondary sources over the clear testimony of primary sources.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Based on the quote above from "A Glimpse," it would seem the burden of proof would be on those who would attempt to interpret his words in a figurative manner.

His statement in the Ephesians sermons specifically refutes a physical return of Christ to inaugurate the millennium. The statement in the Glimpse nowhere avows a physical return of Christ prior to the millennium. In the absence of all other evidence the only proper conclusion to draw is that Goodwin did not teach that Christ visibly returns before the millennium, or what is today called premillennialism. I don't know too many historians who would pride themselves on following secondary sources over the clear testimony of primary sources.

If course, if each premise of your statement were valid, your conclusion would be true. Yet the language from "A Glimpse" which speaks of our Lord's "personal" "coming" "to earth" to reign for a "thousand years" would led some folks to conclude that some form of Premillennialism is assumed.

 

[MW]

If course, if each premise of your statement were valid, your conclusion would be true. Yet the language from "A Glimpse" which speaks of our Lord's "personal" "coming" "to earth" to reign for a "thousand years" would led some folks to conclude that some form of Premillennialism is assumed.

Sure, if that is what premillennialism taught, but it doesn't; it teaches the visible, physical return of Christ before the millennium, which Goodwin repudiates.

The Glimpse explains what is meant by the glorious presence of Christ in thirteen points. None of them speak of a physical presence of Christ. All of them are expected by those who are today called postmillennialists or optimistic amillennialists.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

If course, if each premise of your statement were valid, your conclusion would be true. Yet the language from "A Glimpse" which speaks of our Lord's "personal" "coming" "to earth" to reign for a "thousand years" would led some folks to conclude that some form of Premillennialism is assumed.

Sure, if that is what premillennialism taught, but it doesn't; it teaches the visible, physical return of Christ before the millennium, which Goodwin repudiates.

The Glimpse explains what is meant by the glorious presence of Christ in thirteen points. None of them speak of a physical presence of Christ. All of them are expected by those who are today called postmillennialists or optimistic amillennialists.

Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I think it would benefit many to know that the terminology of millennialism is mostly a recent acquisition of terms that have been more defined in the past 300 years or so. So to make a postmil and amil distinction flat out is even difficult before the term amil was used (or even now the term used by them... realized or gospel age millennialism). I believe it is the same for Chiliasm and what others know to be Premillennialism. The terminiology has been tightened up quite a bit in just the past few hundred years and now we are reading back into the earlier writers our presuppositions of what is being said. When they say something concerning a 1000 year reign on earth we automatically assume a premil of Christ's physical presence here in Jerusalem when that most likely might not be the case.

That is just like the football argument. When the soccer world speaks of football they mean soccer. But when a Yank hears football he thinks of Notre Dame and the fighting Irish.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

I think it would benefit many to know that the terminology of millennialism is mostly a recent acquisition of terms that have been more defined in the past 300 years or so. So to make a postmil and amil distinction flat out is even difficult before the term amil was used (or even now the term used by them... realized or gospel age millennialism). I believe it is the same for Chiliasm and what others know to be Premillennialism. The terminiology has been tightened up quite a bit in just the past few hundred years and now we are reading back into the earlier writers our presuppositions of what is being said. When they say something concerning a 1000 year reign on earth we automatically assume a premil of Christ's physical presence here in Jerusalem when that most likely might not be the case.

That is just like the football argument. When the soccer world speaks of football they mean soccer. But when a Yank hears football he thinks of Notre Dame and the fighting Irish.

I appreciate your helpful caution at this point. The question I am working on is the appearance of contradiction between the two documents.

Iain Murray writes of this in his book "The Puritan Hope" (p. 272):
"There is a positiveness in 'A Glimpse' which does not harmonize with the tone of Goodwin's Ephesian sermon, and further, in the former the personal descent and reign of Christ is asserted (Works, 12,71), while in the latter it is denied."

This quote is, of course, in the context of Murray discussing whether Goodwin was a "premillennalist." Murray had asserted that Goodwin was Premillennial earlier in the book (pp. 52-53).

 

[MW]

Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?

Obviously many premils have advocated an historical basis for their views and there is no doubt that their references to miscellaneous statements has won the general support of historians. Contextual reading of the primary sources, however, paints a different picture.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

I think it would benefit many to know that the terminology of millennialism is mostly a recent acquisition of terms that have been more defined in the past 300 years or so. So to make a postmil and amil distinction flat out is even difficult before the term amil was used (or even now the term used by them... realized or gospel age millennialism). I believe it is the same for Chiliasm and what others know to be Premillennialism. The terminiology has been tightened up quite a bit in just the past few hundred years and now we are reading back into the earlier writers our presuppositions of what is being said. When they say something concerning a 1000 year reign on earth we automatically assume a premil of Christ's physical presence here in Jerusalem when that most likely might not be the case.

That is just like the football argument. When the soccer world speaks of football they mean soccer. But when a Yank hears football he thinks of Notre Dame and the fighting Irish.

Dear PuritanCovenanter, I am curious at this point. Would you consider that prior to John Nelson Darby, anyone in the history of the church could be considered, by any standard of definition one might choose to impose, a premillennnalist? Do you believe in the existence of any form of premillennialism prior to John Nelson Darby? Is premillennialism the creation of John Nelson Darby and the 19th century?

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Thank you, dear friend in Christ, I believe I have identified your answer. I appreciate your gracious tone in this matter.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Dear PuritanCovenanter, I am curious at this point. Would you consider that prior to John Nelson Darby, anyone in the history of the church could be considered, by any standard of definition one might choose to impose, a premillennnalist? Do you believe in the existence of any form of premillennialism prior to John Nelson Darby? Is premillennialism the creation of John Nelson Darby and the 19th century?

I am not sure. I think you would have to clearly establish the fact from primary sources that someone believed that Christ would show up physically present to rule the earth on a physical throne in the writings of those who have believed in a literal period of time before the last resurrection. I know of those who claimed such from Justin Martyr that have been supposedy refuted in some of the things I have read. I think I read some of that in Cox's writings. Maybe 'Amillennialism Today' or his book on Final things. It also might have been in Hoekema's 'The Bible and the Future'.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?

Obviously many premils have advocated an historical basis for their views and there is no doubt that their references to miscellaneous statements has won the general support of historians. Contextual reading of the primary sources, however, paints a different picture.

So I decided to go back and read the sections of Justin Martyr's works that are allegedly premillennial, and I must admit I could not find the basic premil view, i.e., that Christ returns to earth and dwells in Jerusalem for 1000 years with the saints.

But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXX)

Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXXI)

If anyone has a quote from Justin with Christ on the earth during the 1000 years, please share it.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?

Obviously many premils have advocated an historical basis for their views and there is no doubt that their references to miscellaneous statements has won the general support of historians. Contextual reading of the primary sources, however, paints a different picture.

So I decided to go back and read the sections of Justin Martyr's works that are allegedly premillennial, and I must admit I could not find the basic premil view, i.e., that Christ returns to earth and dwells in Jerusalem for 1000 years with the saints.

But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXX)

Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXXI)

If anyone has a quote from Justin with Christ on the earth during the 1000 years, please share it.

Thank you.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 04:25:56 EST-----

Dear PuritanCovenanter, I am curious at this point. Would you consider that prior to John Nelson Darby, anyone in the history of the church could be considered, by any standard of definition one might choose to impose, a premillennnalist? Do you believe in the existence of any form of premillennialism prior to John Nelson Darby? Is premillennialism the creation of John Nelson Darby and the 19th century?

I am not sure. I think you would have to clearly establish the fact from primary sources that someone believed that Christ would show up physically present to rule the earth on a physical throne in the writings of those who have believed in a literal period of time before the last resurrection. I know of those who claimed such from Justin Martyr that have been supposedy refuted in some of the things I have read. I think I read some of that in Cox's writings. Maybe 'Amillennialism Today' or his book on Final things. It also might have been in Hoekema's 'The Bible and the Future'.

Therefore, we have established, among some, at least, that the Premil position was possibly, yet not certainly, created by John Nelson Darbey. Thank you.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 04:54:03 EST-----

Therefore, if I may, Premillennialism never existed until John Nelson Darbey created it in the 19th Century. Is that correct?

 

[Scott1]

To be clear here,

Are we saying that a physical rule of Christ on earth before a 1,000 year period is a product of modern dispensational premillennialism?

And by that, are we saying none of the early Church fathers believed in a physical rule of our Lord in like manner?

Are we also then left with a lone definition of "chiliasm" as being belief in a millennium of spiritual reign by Christ (not physical) before His return?

 

[Baptist-1689er]

To be clear here,

Are we saying that a physical rule of Christ on earth before a 1,000 year period is a product of modern dispensational premillennialism?

And by that, are we saying none of the early Church fathers believed in a physical rule of our Lord in like manner?

Are we also then left with a lone definition of "chiliasm" as being belief in a millennium of spiritual reign by Christ (not physical) before His return?

Yep, I think that is where we may be headed.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 05:57:55 EST-----

To be clear here,

Are we saying that a physical rule of Christ on earth before a 1,000 year period is a product of modern dispensational premillennialism?

And by that, are we saying none of the early Church fathers believed in a physical rule of our Lord in like manner?

Are we also then left with a lone definition of "chiliasm" as being belief in a millennium of spiritual reign by Christ (not physical) before His return?

Unless, of course, some of our friends here would like to correct this assumption.

 

[py3ak]

To be clear here,

Are we saying that a physical rule of Christ on earth before a 1,000 year period is a product of modern dispensational premillennialism?

And by that, are we saying none of the early Church fathers believed in a physical rule of our Lord in like manner?

Are we also then left with a lone definition of "chiliasm" as being belief in a millennium of spiritual reign by Christ (not physical) before His return?

It would be surprising if anyone were asserting that, given what has already been quoted in the thread:

Thomas Goodwin (Works 1:521):

The third degree of this new world is this, that when this glorious time cometh, that Jesus Christ will thus call home both Jew and Gentile, and have a new world in respect of multitudes of men of all nations coming in unto him, to make this new world the more complete, he will bring part of heaven down to it. This, I say, is more controverted. I shall but express to you briefly some grounds for it, which I confess for these twenty years I have not known well how to answer, and that is all that I can say.

It is not that Christ himself shall come down—that is the old error of some — to reign at Jerusalem; which error indeed the fathers spake against, and which hath brought a blemish and absurdity upon that opinion. But that under Christ, reigning in heaven, — for certainly his court is there, and that is his temple, and he sitteth there both over this world and that to come, — yet that under him part of heaven shall come down and rule this world, to make the glory of it so much the more complete, to put down Adam's world, I shall give you rather those reasons.

The emphasized portion shows belief in a physical, local reign of Christ is not new: it is considered an old error.

 

[tcalbrecht]

The emphasized portion shows belief in a physical, local reign of Christ is not new: it is considered an old error.

Would anyone ever argue that it was a belief of the Church?

 

[Baptist-1689er]

The emphasized portion shows belief in a physical, local reign of Christ is not new: it is considered an old error.

Would anyone ever argue that it was a belief of the Church?

Ok. Then have we established here that John Nelson Darbey created premillennialism, and that it was absent at any other time in the life of the church before him?

 

[MW]

Ok. Then have we established here that John Nelson Darbey created premillennialism, and that it was absent at any other time in the life of the church before him?

Darby is associated with the rise and spread of dispensationalism.

As noted, premillennialism has historical representation amongst extremists.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Ok. Then have we established here that John Nelson Darbey created premillennialism, and that it was absent at any other time in the life of the church before him?

Darby is associated with the rise and spread of dispensationalism.

As noted, premillennialism has historical representation amongst extremists.

Well, while you may assert that premillennialism has some "historical representation" in the history of the church, and I think history is on your side at this point, I am not sure most folks here are as certain as you may be. I am still curious what an "extremist" is, according to you.

 

[MW]

I am still curious what an "extremist" is, according to you.

In the early church, Judaistic; in the middle ages, mystic; from the Reformation to the present, Anabaptistic.

 

[py3ak]

The emphasized portion shows belief in a physical, local reign of Christ is not new: it is considered an old error.

Would anyone ever argue that it was a belief of the Church?

Well given the very broad terms (anyone, ever) it's hard to give a definitive negative. I don't think premillenialism was enshrined in any documents with constitutional authority until relatively recently, but I haven't read all constitutional documents.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?

Obviously many premils have advocated an historical basis for their views and there is no doubt that their references to miscellaneous statements has won the general support of historians. Contextual reading of the primary sources, however, paints a different picture.

So I decided to go back and read the sections of Justin Martyr's works that are allegedly premillennial, and I must admit I could not find the basic premil view, i.e., that Christ returns to earth and dwells in Jerusalem for 1000 years with the saints.

But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXX)

Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXXI)

If anyone has a quote from Justin with Christ on the earth during the 1000 years, please share it.

Tom, I think the references you shared from Dialogue 80-81 have the elements one would expect from a premil position. It is true that Justin doesn't explicitly mention the Second Advent, but I think it is assumed. He does reference it earlier (Dialogue 32 & 51) and later (110 & 113). I find the following elements:

1. a resurrection from the dead, then
2. a 1000 years in Jerusalem, then
3. the general resurrection and judgment.

For the sake of argument, because he doesn't reference the Second Coming in connection with the general resurrection and judgment, should we then conclude that he didn't believe in Christ's Second Coming then? I don't think we would want to interpret his omission that way either. I think it is more reasonable to interpret his words as describing what will occur after the Second Coming, which would appear to be Premillennial in his understanding. These are just my thoughts on the references above.

 

[MW]

There was a recent thread on dispensationalism where I commented on Justin.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/any...swering-john-macarthur-here-50723/index5.html

Perhaps it would be better to discuss his opinions there so as not to take this thread off topic.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

There was a recent thread on dispensationalism where I commented on Justin.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/any...swering-john-macarthur-here-50723/index5.html

Perhaps it would be better to discuss his opinions there so as not to take this thread off topic.

Thanks, Rev. Winzer. I wasn't aware of that thread.

 

[tcalbrecht]

For the sake of argument, because he doesn't reference the Second Coming in connection with the general resurrection and judgment, should we then conclude that he didn't believe in Christ's Second Coming then? I don't think we would want to interpret his omission that way either. I think it is more reasonable to interpret his words as describing what will occur after the Second Coming, which would appear to be Premillennial in his understanding. These are just my thoughts on the references above.

More importantly, what he does not mention is Christ on earth in Jerusalem during this thousand years. The (modern) premil Second Coming is predicated on that belief. So it is safe to say that he does not mention two key components of the premil view.

It is quite possible to take his words to identify a spiritual resurrection and then a physical one separated by a thousand years. This make sense especially in light of the last sentence in the second section, “Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’” This description follows the clause, “and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.”

My point being that the idea of nascent premillennialism in Justin’s writing is not as clear as I first thought.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

I agree Tom. It's not as clear as I had assumed either.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Therefore I believe we have concluded that Premillennialism is at variance with the WCF, it has never been held among those who are orthodox, and anyone who might suggest that it is biblical is an "extremist."

 

[E. Thomas Young]

Hey guys, I find this discussion fascinating. I am new to Puritan Board. I am an avid reader, but not much of a computer guy. So please go easy on me I knew the late Jim Boice personally. I never knew him to espouse the pre-trib view, even though he was certainly a Premil. Was Jerremiah Burroughs a Congregationalist? He was part of the Westminster Assembly and was Premil. Thanks, I am glad to be amongst such learned men. I think I may be out of my league though.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Hey guys, I find this discussion fascinating. I am new to Puritan Board. I am an avid reader, but not much of a computer guy. So please go easy on me I knew the late Jim Boice personally. I never knew him to espouse the pre-trib view, even though he was certainly a Premil. Was Jerremiah Burroughs a Congregationalist? He was part of the Westminster Assembly and was Premil. Thanks, I am glad to be amongst such learned men. I think I may be out of my league though.

Dear E. Thomas Young, If you would like to know his views, I would highly recommend his book "The Last and Future World" (Zondervan:1974). His Pre-trib, Premil views are clear in this book. Of Course, some here on this Board must conclude that he was an "extremist." I am not as learned as these dear scholars are, and I must confess before them, that I personally loved his ministry in the Word.