Reformed Baptist millennial view?
- Thread starter thistle93
- Start date
- Status
All of the above. We are no more unified on the subject than most Presbyterians.
I tend to be a pessimistic postmil
(as in the view presented by Iain Murray in The Puritan Hope with an over-the-shoulder casual dread that maybe the millennium is already over), my pastor is an unmovable amil. I know several who are historic premil. Of course, those are all current views, but I don't think there was any consistent view historically. We didn't even use the term "Reformed Baptist" until fairly recently. And everyone claims Spurgeon as holding to whatever view they have.
I tend to be a pessimistic postmil
(as in the view presented by Iain Murray in The Puritan Hope with an over-the-shoulder casual dread that maybe the millennium is already over), my pastor is an unmovable amil. I know several who are historic premil. Of course, those are all current views, but I don't think there was any consistent view historically. We didn't even use the term "Reformed Baptist" until fairly recently. And everyone claims Spurgeon as holding to whatever view they have.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
All of the above. We are no more unified on the subject than most Presbyterians.
I tend to be a pessimistic postmil
Agreed on the diversity among RB's. The handful of churches that I personally know are Amil.
Damon Rambo
Puritan Board Sophomore
All of the above. We are no more unified on the subject than most Presbyterians.
I tend to be a pessimistic postmil
Spurgeon was a historic pre-mill...and so am I.
Seriously, how can anyone say that Spurgeon was anything but? Spurgeon states his view very plainly; that he is premillennial.
Well, Iain Murray surveyed his work and thinks his position changed over time. Masters (a later pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle) advocated that he was amil. Some sermons seem to reject postmil outright, except his earlier sermons seem to assume it. People can argue about who is right, but the plain fact is that people of all persuasions have claimed him. Whether they are right or wrong is beside the point I was trying to make.
I think the best explanation is that Spurgeon did not see the need to emphasize eschatology (although he was strongly against the Plymouth Brethern position that was gaining popularity) at the expense of other, more pressing demands upon his ministry, such as the Downgrade Controversy and simply preaching the gospel.
But Spurgeon's views on eschatology are beyond the scope of this thread.
I think the best explanation is that Spurgeon did not see the need to emphasize eschatology (although he was strongly against the Plymouth Brethern position that was gaining popularity) at the expense of other, more pressing demands upon his ministry, such as the Downgrade Controversy and simply preaching the gospel.
But Spurgeon's views on eschatology are beyond the scope of this thread.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
I've come to understand that the Westminster Standards assume what is now called "amillennialism"- it was really "the only game in town" when the reformers considered implicit doctrine about this subject. Postmillennialism is really a form of that, and could be accommodated within the same framework. Historic premillennialism would likely require difference with the Standards at a couple of points due to the separation between return and judgment, but could still be accommodated within the framework (I'm not sure on this, only my thinking at this time).
Modern dispensational premillennialism was not even on the radar screen when the Confession was drafted since it is a product of dispensationalism, and therefore, basically, it is not compatible with it.
Looking at the London Baptist Confession now, it looks very similar regarding the Judgment and Second Coming, almost identical on those chapters at the end (Chapters XXX and XXXI).
Would that same analysis (as Westminster above) apply to those who hold the London Baptist Confession?
If not, why not?
Modern dispensational premillennialism was not even on the radar screen when the Confession was drafted since it is a product of dispensationalism, and therefore, basically, it is not compatible with it.
Looking at the London Baptist Confession now, it looks very similar regarding the Judgment and Second Coming, almost identical on those chapters at the end (Chapters XXX and XXXI).
Would that same analysis (as Westminster above) apply to those who hold the London Baptist Confession?
If not, why not?
JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
There are a wide range of views among 'reformed' Baptists today. All english RBs I know are amil. American RBs I know are about 50/50 historic premil vs amil.
As to Spurgeon, if you read Peter Masters' review of his lifetime of sermon references to the second coming, he does not claim him as amil, but notes that his theology seems to change throughout his life, by the end of which he is 'closer' to amil than premil, with one or two particular oddities. The fascinating work PM did was published in the Sword and Trowel in the 1980s. Probably not available anywhere. One of the many things I have asked that they might republish.
I'm not sure about CHS. I still tend to think he was premil (certainly NOT postmil as Iain Murray tries to make out) but he surely was somewhat contradictory when his lifetime's sermons are analysed alongside one another.
As to Spurgeon, if you read Peter Masters' review of his lifetime of sermon references to the second coming, he does not claim him as amil, but notes that his theology seems to change throughout his life, by the end of which he is 'closer' to amil than premil, with one or two particular oddities. The fascinating work PM did was published in the Sword and Trowel in the 1980s. Probably not available anywhere. One of the many things I have asked that they might republish.
I'm not sure about CHS. I still tend to think he was premil (certainly NOT postmil as Iain Murray tries to make out) but he surely was somewhat contradictory when his lifetime's sermons are analysed alongside one another.
- Status
