The Preterist Hermeneutic

Status
Not open for further replies.
The job of a pastor, as it relates to his preaching the Scriptures, is at least two fold. You must preach sola scriptura, but you must preach tota scriptura as well. Only scripture, but all of scripture. This doesn't mean that you have to preach through every book of the Bible. But if you were for example preaching through Matthew, I think it would not be true exposition to not deal with some of these issues. Especially because so many people sitting in the pews are being tossed to and fro by every wind of eschatological doctrine.

And by the way, the following statement, again shows the misuse of the term hermeneutic:

The NT writers would have actually had some futurist interpretations and some preterist (in the past) interpretations. It would all depend upon the specific prophecy which was being dealt with. There is no overall encompasing scheme that can be placed upon Scripture, where all prophecies must be future or in the past. With respect to many NT prophecies, and some OT ones, the writers of the NT would have been futurists, because they hadn't taken place yet. But with respect to many OT prophecies they would have been preterists, because they had already been fulfilled. Just read through Matthew and you will hear the constant refrain "to fulfill...." or "so that it might be fulfilled...". With respect to these prophecies they viewed them as being in the past. Likewise, the orthodox preterist (today) does not believe every prophecy has been fulfilled. So in the sense that they are only partial preterists, they are also partial futurists.

What is simply being said here is that text need to be dealt with on a text by text basis. There is no blanket scheme or hermeneutic that can solve these issues

I agree. I was refering specifically to those prophecies in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. My point is that Paul, John and Peter, when 'looking back' to the prophecies of Jesus in those passages would have *interpreted* them to refer to some time in the future. Thus, wouldn't they be called 'futurists' by today's definition?
 
But to the point, then, on what occasions would it be appropriate for a TE to share his views on the timing of Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21?

A TE, or minister of the Word, could possibly share his views on these texts, within his official calling. As long as he was stating them as his own views, not necessitating them or obligating them on anyone. After all, that's what the higher assembly also said when it allowed for the different views, not obligating anyone to any one view.

There's the matter of a wrongful appeal to authority. His holding an office of Christ's does not elevate his personal view above that of others, even if they do not hold office. A personal view is a personal view, no matter who holds it. It is the higher assembly that will determine, if possible, whether one view is authoritative or not. If the Bible does not clearly state it, then the Bible does not clearly state it.

It is the minister's place, in such things, to show perhaps by how he arrived at his own views, to encourage great care on such matters, and not to be careless in saying too much. He can use his extra education on such things to great effect, not in resolving the different views, but in encouraging respect for godliness in the discussions around the different views. These discussions also may not resolve the differences, but they will certainly help to discard errors in the differing views that some may hold. And who would not welcome the discarding of error from their own views?
 
A TE, or minister of the Word, could possibly share his views on these texts, within his official calling. As long as he was stating them as his own views, not necessitating them or obligating them on anyone. After all, that's what the higher assembly also said when it allowed for the different views, not obligating anyone to any one view.

There's the matter of a wrongful appeal to authority. His holding an office of Christ's does not elevate his personal view above that of others, even if they do not hold office. A personal view is a personal view, no matter who holds it. It is the higher assembly that will determine, if possible, whether one view is authoritative or not. If the Bible does not clearly state it, then the Bible does not clearly state it.

It is the minister's place, in such things, to show perhaps by how he arrived at his own views, to encourage great care on such matters, and not to be careless in saying too much. He can use his extra education on such things to great effect, not in resolving the different views, but in encouraging respect for godliness in the discussions around the different views. These discussions also may not resolve the differences, but they will certainly help to discard errors in the differing views that some may hold. And who would not welcome the discarding of error from their own views?

You have an odd view of presbyterian polity. The confession is meant to guard against false doctrine. If someone is within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy, they have the freedom to preach Scripture. It seems to me that you have functionally elevated the standards from their position as secondary standards, to primary. The pastor is a minister of the Word, and as such he has the right and responsibility for teaching the Word. If he is preaching through a book, for example, and he comes across a eschatological passage, he needs to preach through it, unless for some reason he does not understand it (in which case he probably shouldn't have picked that book). If he has a firm conviction of what the text says, he ought to preach that to his people. If someone preached through a chapter like Matthew 24, and never talked about any eschatalogical subjects, they haven't truly preached the text. They may have written that text down in the bulletin as their supposed sermon text. They may have even read the passage at the beginning of their sermon, but they have not preached the text. Thus what you are proposing would mean the ministers are forbiden from preaching all of Scripture, because the confession does not have doctrinal position on the matter. That is simply mistaken.

KMK, I would be careful in listening to this advice.

By the way, KMK, are you preaching through Matthew right now, or something along those lines?
 
A TE, or minister of the Word, could possibly share his views on these texts, within his official calling. As long as he was stating them as his own views, not necessitating them or obligating them on anyone. After all, that's what the higher assembly also said when it allowed for the different views, not obligating anyone to any one view.

There's the matter of a wrongful appeal to authority. His holding an office of Christ's does not elevate his personal view above that of others, even if they do not hold office. A personal view is a personal view, no matter who holds it. It is the higher assembly that will determine, if possible, whether one view is authoritative or not. If the Bible does not clearly state it, then the Bible does not clearly state it.

It is the minister's place, in such things, to show perhaps by how he arrived at his own views, to encourage great care on such matters, and not to be careless in saying too much. He can use his extra education on such things to great effect, not in resolving the different views, but in encouraging respect for godliness in the discussions around the different views. These discussions also may not resolve the differences, but they will certainly help to discard errors in the differing views that some may hold.

So, in your opinion, it would be inapropriate for a preacher to stand in the pulpit and preach, "The prophecy that Jesus preaches here in Matt 24 has already been fulfilled. We know this to be true because Jesus is directing the prophecy toward those of His generation, and we see from Josephus that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD exactly the way Jesus described it."

But it would not be inapropriate for a preacher to stand in the pulpit and preach, "In my humble opinion, which is within orthodoxy, the prophecy that Jesus preaches here in Matt 24 has already been fulfilled. We know this to be true because Jesus is directing the prophecy toward those of His generation, and we see from Josephus that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD exactly the way Jesus described it."

Is that right?

And who would not welcome the discarding of error from their own views?

You would be surprised.
 
You have an odd view of presbyterian polity. The confession is meant to guard against false doctrine. If someone is within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy, they have the freedom to preach Scripture. It seems to me that you have functionally elevated the standards from their position as secondary standards, to primary. The pastor is a minister of the Word, and as such he has the right and responsibility for teaching the Word. If he is preaching through a book, for example, and he comes across a eschatological passage, he needs to preach through it, unless for some reason he does not understand it (in which case he probably shouldn't have picked that book). If he has a firm conviction of what the text says, he ought to preach that to his people. If someone preached through a chapter like Matthew 24, and never talked about any eschatalogical subjects, they haven't truly preached the text. They may have written that text down in the bulletin as their supposed sermon text. They may have even read the passage at the beginning of their sermon, but they have not preached the text. Thus what you are proposing would mean the ministers are forbiden from preaching all of Scripture, because the confession does not have doctrinal position on the matter. That is simply mistaken.

I think you might be reading too much into John's opinion. What I am hearing John say is that a minister of the Word oversteps if he presents as truth an opinion on which the church has not come to a conclusion.

John said:

A TE, or minister of the Word, could possibly share his views on these texts, within his official calling. As long as he was stating them as his own views, not necessitating them or obligating them on anyone. After all, that's what the higher assembly also said when it allowed for the different views, not obligating anyone to any one view.

Being a Baptist I have no higher assembly other than the confession I adhere to. But the LBC leaves open to conjecture the date of fulfillment of the prophecies of Matt 24. And this brings me back to my original question. Since the LBC does not prescribe an interpretation of Matt 24, is it appropriate for me (as a preacher) to bring in Josephus, an unispired work, to teach a preterist interpretation? Especially seeing how preterism is not the majority view in church history?

By the way, KMK, are you preaching through Matthew right now, or something along those lines?

No, I am in Rom 8. I have my hands full right now with predestination, but I am trying to sort out in my own mind what my escatological views are and also how much bearing those views have on my duty to preach the whole counsel of God.

BTW, your input in this thread has been very helpful to me.
 
I think you might be reading too much into John's opinion. What I am hearing John say is that a minister of the Word oversteps if he presents as truth an opinion on which the church has not come to a conclusion.

John said:



Being a Baptist I have no higher assembly other than the confession I adhere to. But the LBC leaves open to conjecture the date of fulfillment of the prophecies of Matt 24. And this brings me back to my original question. Since the LBC does not prescribe an interpretation of Matt 24, is it appropriate for me (as a preacher) to bring in Josephus, an unispired work, to teach a preterist interpretation? Especially seeing how preterism is not the majority view in church history?



No, I am in Rom 8. I have my hands full right now with predestination, but I am trying to sort out in my own mind what my escatological views are and also how much bearing those views have on my duty to preach the whole counsel of God.

BTW, your input in this thread has been very helpful to me.

Well the problem is that John is just wrong on the function of the confession and preaching. In one sense the preacher does not have any right to force his hearers to anything. And he has no right to demand that the official members of his church hold to any particular doctrines, besides what is required in their profession of faith, to show basic orthodoxy. The membership of the church is professional, not confessional. It is the officers of the church who suscribe to the confession. The reason why the confession allowed people to hold various eschatological view was for the catholicity of the church. various views are within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy. Therefore, they were allowed to teach and propogate those various positions.

This whole mentality that John is expressing is something that I think is indicative of much of the reformed church. And that is, as I said earlier, that the confession is elevated to a standard that is as high as Scripture. Don't get me wrong, I am a confessionalists, and I go to the most strict subscriptionists seminary in the country, but I clearly hold the confession as subordinate to Scripture. It seems as though he is coming very close to saying the pastor can only preach on the confession. Oh, yes he will use Scripture, but he is not allowed to go outside of the issues dealt with by the confession (not contradict, just say something that the confession doesn't). But this is not how the confession was meant to be used. It is a standard of Orthodoxy, we may not contradict it. It does not limit what the preacher can say or do, because the Minister of the Gospel is not simply the Minister of the confession. He is the mouthpiece of God, in the pulpit, and he speaks what the Scriptures speak. He is not simply the mouthpiece of the confession. Now he ought not to teach contrary to the confession, but he is not limited to the confession. If that were the case, one could reduce the position to obsurdity, because even when I, for example, describe predestination, I am going beyone the language of the confession. I am putting things into my own words. What if the way I phrase something is wrong? If I followed Johns argument I would have have to say here is what the confession says (then read it). And then say, now here is what my opinion is about what the confession means. Now, there is no problem with doing that if you are teaching a sunday school class through the confession, but that is not preaching. We preach through the Scriptures, not the confession. You are preaching through Romans right now, and will be dealing with election. Could you see how ridiculous that position of preaching would look like. You would read your sermon text, and then read the confession text. You would say the confession here is authoritative. Now let me give you my personal unauthoritative interpretation of that.

If I went to a church where the pastor preached like that I would leave.
 
So, in your opinion, it would be inapropriate for a preacher to stand in the pulpit and preach, "The prophecy that Jesus preaches here in Matt 24 has already been fulfilled. We know this to be true because Jesus is directing the prophecy toward those of His generation, and we see from Josephus that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD exactly the way Jesus described it."

I think I also need to disagree with John’s assessment.

It is never inappropriate for a minister of the gospel to declare “thus saith the Lord” if the manner by which they make such statement is a careful, Scripture by Scripture exposition regardless of the subject matter. Just because good Christians may differ on the interpretation of a text or the meaning of a doctrine does not obligate a minister to preface every remark with the banner “personal opinion”. Such a voice is not worth listening to, in my opinion.

Also, it is never appropriate to appeal to any external source (including the Confession) as the final arbiter of sound doctrine. No Confession touches on every aspect of the whole council of God. As Gabe rightly said, they are called ministers of the Gospel, not ministers of the confession. If you cannot make your point from Scripture, then find other work.
 
Well the problem is that John is just wrong on the function of the confession and preaching. In one sense the preacher does not have any right to force his hearers to anything. And he has no right to demand that the official members of his church hold to any particular doctrines, besides what is required in their profession of faith, to show basic orthodoxy. The membership of the church is professional, not confessional. It is the officers of the church who suscribe to the confession. The reason why the confession allowed people to hold various eschatological view was for the catholicity of the church. various views are within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy. Therefore, they were allowed to teach and propogate those various positions.

This whole mentality that John is expressing is something that I think is indicative of much of the reformed church. And that is, as I said earlier, that the confession is elevated to a standard that is as high as Scripture. Don't get me wrong, I am a confessionalists, and I go to the most strict subscriptionists seminary in the country, but I clearly hold the confession as subordinate to Scripture. It seems as though he is coming very close to saying the pastor can only preach on the confession. Oh, yes he will use Scripture, but he is not allowed to go outside of the issues dealt with by the confession (not contradict, just say something that the confession doesn't). But this is not how the confession was meant to be used. It is a standard of Orthodoxy, we may not contradict it. It does not limit what the preacher can say or do, because the Minister of the Gospel is not simply the Minister of the confession. He is the mouthpiece of God, in the pulpit, and he speaks what the Scriptures speak. He is not simply the mouthpiece of the confession. Now he ought not to teach contrary to the confession, but he is not limited to the confession. If that were the case, one could reduce the position to obsurdity, because even when I, for example, describe predestination, I am going beyone the language of the confession. I am putting things into my own words. What if the way I phrase something is wrong? If I followed Johns argument I would have have to say here is what the confession says (then read it). And then say, now here is what my opinion is about what the confession means. Now, there is no problem with doing that if you are teaching a sunday school class through the confession, but that is not preaching. We preach through the Scriptures, not the confession. You are preaching through Romans right now, and will be dealing with election. Could you see how ridiculous that position of preaching would look like. You would read your sermon text, and then read the confession text. You would say the confession here is authoritative. Now let me give you my personal unauthoritative interpretation of that.

I agree that the scenario you describe is ridiculous. I am not sure that is what John is opining. My confusion as to your objection with John's opinion might originate from the fact that I am not a Presbyterian and do not have full understanding of how assemblys and synods and councils work.

If I went to a church where the pastor preached like that I would leave.

Would you leave if the preacher taught the *Klinean use of Hittite Suzerainty treates*?

Also, just to clarify, I have great respect for Gentry and for preterism in general. And I think your testimony clears up some things for me.
 
Also, it is never appropriate to appeal to any external source ... as the final arbiter of sound doctrine.

Would this include Josephus? That is the question I am asking. Are the time texts conclusive enough on their own to be the *final arbiter of sound doctrine*?
 
I agree that the scenario you describe is ridiculous. I am not sure that is what John is opining. My confusion as to your objection with John's opinion might originate from the fact that I am not a Presbyterian and do not have full understanding of how assemblys and synods and councils work.



Would you leave if the preacher taught the *Klinean use of Hittite Suzerainty treates*?

Also, just to clarify, I have great respect for Gentry and for preterism in general. And I think your testimony clears up some things for me.

I wouldn't get up and walk out of the church if I was sitting under a klineian preacher, no. One of my very best friends, goes to Westminster california, and holds to that view. By I would strongly disagree, and I wouldn't attend a church like that. That is, unless it was the only reformed church in the area.

As to John's view of the use of the confession in the life of the Church, i simply believe that it is not the presbyterian view. You have to remember, and this is not saying anything against anyone on this board. That often times people who aren't trained in a specific field, often have a false view of that field, yet speak about it as though they are an authority. This is not always the case. It is clearly possible that the reverse could be true as well, someone could be trained, but decieved. My whole point in saying this, is that you won't just think because someone like John, who is not a pastor, tells you what a pastor can or cannot say, based upon a false understanding of the function of confessions, you will take it with a grain of salt, and not think, wow this guy really knows ecclesiology. (how was that for a run on sentence :D )
 
Would this include Josephus? That is the question I am asking. Are the time texts conclusive enough on their own to be the *final arbiter of sound doctrine*?

"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (WCF 1:10)

Josephus is not an authoritative arbiter of truth. Neither is Calvin nor the Westminster divines. It is the Scripture alone. The “time texts” need to be properly interpreted and applied within the context of Scripture alone.

The same argument can be used with those who would trot out Irenaeus and Eusebius as arbiters on the date of Revelation as "proof" that it cannot be interpreted within the preterist framework.
 
"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (WCF 1:10)

Josephus is not an authoritative arbiter of truth. Neither is Calvin nor the Westminster divines. It is the Scripture alone. The “time texts” need to be properly interpreted and applied within the context of Scripture alone.

The same argument can be used with those who would trot out Irenaeus and Eusebius as arbiters on the date of Revelation as "proof" that it cannot be interpreted within the preterist framework.

:amen:
 
The same argument can be used with those who would trot out Irenaeus and Eusebius as arbiters on the date of Revelation as "proof" that it cannot be interpreted within the preterist framework.

But can Irenaeus and Eusebius be *trotted out* as confrimation of internal biblical evidence of a late date of Revelation? (assuming there is such internal evidence)

Is it appropriate for a preacher to elevate the testimony of Josephus above the testimony of Irenaeus and Eusebius and the majority of Historical Theology?
 
My whole point in saying this, is that you won't just think because someone like John, who is not a pastor, tells you what a pastor can or cannot say, based upon a false understanding of the function of confessions, you will take it with a grain of salt, and not think, wow this guy really knows ecclesiology.

Well, of course I take John's opinion with a grain of salt. After al,l he is a Presbyterian! :D
 
But can Irenaeus and Eusebius be *trotted out* as confrimation of internal biblical evidence of a late date of Revelation? (assuming there is such internal evidence)

Is it appropriate for a preacher to elevate the testimony of Josephus above the testimony of Irenaeus and Eusebius and the majority of Historical Theology?

You appear to keep wanting to go back to assign some sort of quasi-authority to the writings of men to settle a "tie". This approach is fundamentally denied by the Confession. (Although the Confession may be wrong. :D)

The best you can do is to say that it may be reasonable to interpret such and such a passage in light of non-authoritative historical statements. But such statements should never be viewed as theological tie-breakers.
 
Ken:

It's a good idea to take what I say with a grain of salt. Use lots of it.

But, if I may come to my own defense a bit, I would like to ask:

At what point does a minister's conjectures become the Word of God?
And where do we find the commandment, the commission from Christ, that men are to fill in the blanks as they see fit, according to their own convictions?

I thought that a minister was a messenger of Christ's, bring His gospel. Since when do messengers add their own things to the message they are sent to deliver? I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard? And where is his commission to do so? Where do we find a text in Scripture that commissions a minister to do that?

What I find disturbing is that ministers feel it so necessary to also preach the things, to conjecture on things, that the Bible does not reveal. There seems to be the sentiment that to leave out those conjectures is to leave out part of Scripture, as if the Bible is not sufficient on its own in what it reveals. We not only have to have the comfort that God will triumph, and that He already knows how He will triumph, that it is already determined by Him in all His power and might, His foreordaining omniscience, but we now have to also have man's conjectures and predictions as to how this will all work out in order to have the "full" Scripture preached to us. It is not the full gospel until men have added their conjectures to the things that are expressly written down for us, or that are derived from necessity.

But even more disturbing is that some of these men make these personal convictions to be necessary pre-convictions to other doctrines. For example, I read a book that declared that one could not know the greatness of the Great Commission until one had adopted a Postmillennial view. Not only was Postmillennialism made into a doctrine, but here it has become a prerequisite doctrine to understanding other parts of the Bible that are clearly and expressly stated in the Bible. The Confessions (the witness of the Church as to Scriptural doctrine) does not make Postmillennialism necessary, but this author makes it a prerequisite to understanding the Bible. From a liberty of conscience to a pre-required stance to understand the Bible.

You are not exempt from this, Ken, because you don't have the same kind of ecclesiastical oversight stucture. You still have your confessional-ecclesiastical standards. You still don't have a special letter from Christ commissioning you to fill in the blanks where you feel it necessary, based upon your own convictions.

Gabriel and Tom are right about some things. My view of Reformed theological limits is not generally acceptable in modern-day Presbyterianism anymore. I am doing my best to seek a rightful and graceful way out of the Presbyterian church, and back to the continental Reformed. I am not at all breaking my oaths to the Westminster Standards, which I made when I joined a Presbyterian church. I don't see the need for that. What I want to break from is the particular application of them that I found so objectionable, that at the time I made my vows I did not know about. I now understand, but I did not back then. What I vowed to I did not break, and have no wish to break. I find the Westminster Confessional standard to be soundly Reformed, and a good balance to the Three Forms of Unity. I do not find any warrant in them at all for ministers adding their own convictions to the revealed doctrines. Sure, I believe that it is warranted that ministers be convicted of the Confessional standards, and that this is quite necessary to the preaching of the Word; in that sense they should add conviction to the doctrines. But that is not adding anything to the doctrinal standards. I find no warrant, either in the Confessions nor in the Bible that a man is called upon to rely upon his own convictions where the Bible does not reveal things. A minister is a messenger of the gospel, and his own added convictions are not part of that revealed gospel. His office does not allow him to expand the message that he is to preach.
 
The best you can do is to say that it may be reasonable to interpret such and such a passage in light of non-authoritative historical statements. But such statements should never be viewed as theological tie-breakers.

But is it appropriate to preach a preterist interpretation based solely on the fact that it is *reasonable*? I agree that the preterist interpretation of Matt 24 is *reasonable* but fall short of agreeing it is necessary unless you bring in Josephus. For me it has always been Josephus that 'seals the deal' for the preterist interpretation. But does that do injustice to the confession? You say that these extra-biblical sources should not be used as *tie-breakers*. I do not see Josephus as a *tie-breaker* as much as the capstone to the preterist interpretation. (I admit that this might be due to my own ignorance and not to any weakness in the preterist interpretation)

The Dispensational says, "Christ's return could occur 'at any moment'". But that is certainly not what Jesus thought. He taught that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies. This did not occur until 66 AD. Therefore when Jesus teaches His disciples to 'watch' in Matt 24, He could not have been teaching them to watch 'because I could come back at any moment'. Yet the Dispensational uses the events of the world to say, "Everything has been fulfilled! The fulness of the Gentiles has come in! The Bible teaches that Jesus could come back at any moment!" But, in fact, that is not what the Bible teaches. You may believe that the Lord could come back at any moment but that is not what the Bible teaches.

Doesn't the Preterist do the same thing? Doesn't the Preterist say, "The Bible teaches that Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD." Well, actually, that is not what the Bible teaches. The preterist teaches that, but the Bible does not.
 
But is it appropriate to preach a preterist interpretation based solely on the fact that it is *reasonable*? I agree that the preterist interpretation of Matt 24 is *reasonable* but fall short of agreeing it is necessary unless you bring in Josephus. For me it has always been Josephus that 'seals the deal' for the preterist interpretation. But does that do injustice to the confession? You say that these extra-biblical sources should not be used as *tie-breakers*. I do not see Josephus as a *tie-breaker* as much as the capstone to the preterist interpretation. (I admit that this might be due to my own ignorance and not to any weakness in the preterist interpretation)

If it is more reasonable than all other options after surveying all Scripture, I would say “yes”. Unless you are confirmed in the view that you may not say anything about any “doubtful” Scritpure.

I think you have Josephus overrated, BTW.

Doesn't the Preterist do the same thing? Doesn't the Preterist say, "The Bible teaches that Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD." Well, actually, that is not what the Bible teaches. The preterist teaches that, but the Bible does not.

Actually, I would say that the Bible teaches that Matthew 24 is in large part about what would fall upon “this generation” and then allow the Bible to interpret itself. Even some dispensationalists admit that Matthew 24 had a certain fulfillment to that generation in the 1st century. They get around the implications of this fact to their theology by saying that it also has another fulfillment far in the future.

I never have to mention Josephus.
 
Ken:

It's a good idea to take what I say with a grain of salt. Use lots of it.

But, if I may come to my own defense a bit, I would like to ask:

At what point does a minister's conjectures become the Word of God?
And where do we find the commandment, the commission from Christ, that men are to fill in the blanks as they see fit, according to their own convictions?


I thought that a minister was a messenger of Christ's, bring His gospel. Since when do messengers add their own things to the message they are sent to deliver? I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard? And where is his commission to do so? Where do we find a text in Scripture that commissions a minister to do that?

John,

With all due respect, I think you have a very stunted view of the role of the minister of the gospel. You seem to have the idea that since not all portions of Scripture are equally clear (WCF 1:7), that a minister may only preach on only the most clear of all subjects. But Westminster also tells us;

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (1:9)

It is the obligation of the minister to seek out the true meaning of all Scripture and present that to his congregation as the whole council of God. The minister may not hide behind the excuse of “it’s not sufficiently clear”.

We all agree that “personal opinion” is not the same as the Word of God, and the minister is, in a very real sense, speaking verbum Dei when they take to the pulpit. So they are to be very careful in what they say. They may not turn to such and such a verse and discover the Republican party platform, or the Green Party platform, or some other bit on nonsense. The Bible is not a political platform. But I would not put those examples on the same level as, say, amillennialism vs. postmillennialism. The Bible does have much to say about eschatology, and defining the terms and positions from Scripture is quite appropriate.

But you seem to wish to restrict what a minister may say to what is expressly written in a Confession, and I would argue that is an entirely inadequate task. Much expository preaching would go out the window.


Gabriel and Tom are right about some things. My view of Reformed theological limits is not generally acceptable in modern-day Presbyterianism anymore. I am doing my best to seek a rightful and graceful way out of the Presbyterian church, and back to the continental Reformed. I am not at all breaking my oaths to the Westminster Standards, which I made when I joined a Presbyterian church. I don't see the need for that. What I want to break from is the particular application of them that I found so objectionable, that at the time I made my vows I did not know about. I now understand, but I did not back then.

I’m curious as to what you mean by this statement. What advantage does the continental Reformed confessions have over Presbyterian ones in this regard? What haven do you think you find in them?

Is there something in Westminster that requires the abuses you apparently have experienced? Or is it just bad preachers being allowed to act unbiblically?
 
If it is more reasonable than all other options after surveying all Scripture, I would say “yes”.

That answers my question. You would say that the *most reasonable* interpretation, after exhausting all of Scripture, is also the *necessary* interpretation. Therefore, if a preacher is convinced, after surveying all of scripture, knowing that the confession says nothing one way or the other, that the preterist interpretation of Matt 24 is the most reasonable interpretation, then that preacher is obliged to preach it that way. In fact, to gloss over it would be to go against his commission to preach the whole counsel of God. Is that what you are saying?

I think you have Josephus overrated, BTW.
I myself, do not. But unfortunately many to whom I preach do.

Actually, I would say that the Bible teaches that Matthew 24 is in large part about what would fall upon “this generation” and then allow the Bible to interpret itself. Even some dispensationalists admit that Matthew 24 had a certain fulfillment to that generation in the 1st century. They get around the implications of this fact to their theology by saying that it also has another fulfillment far in the future.

Agreed.

I never have to mention Josephus.

Do you mean you never mention him by name or you never refer to the historical event of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?
 
John,

With all due respect, I think you have a very stunted view of the role of the minister of the gospel. You seem to have the idea that since not all portions of Scripture are equally clear (WCF 1:7), that a minister may only preach on only the most clear of all subjects. But Westminster also tells us;



It is the obligation of the minister to seek out the true meaning of all Scripture and present that to his congregation as the whole council of God. The minister may not hide behind the excuse of “it’s not sufficiently clear”.

We all agree that “personal opinion” is not the same as the Word of God, and the minister is, in a very real sense, speaking verbum Dei when they take to the pulpit. So they are to be very careful in what they say. They may not turn to such and such a verse and discover the Republican party platform, or the Green Party platform, or some other bit on nonsense. The Bible is not a political platform. But I would not put those examples on the same level as, say, amillennialism vs. postmillennialism. The Bible does have much to say about eschatology, and defining the terms and positions from Scripture is quite appropriate.

But you seem to wish to restrict what a minister may say to what is expressly written in a Confession, and I would argue that is an entirely inadequate task. Much expository preaching would go out the window.
You might be misunderstanding me here, but it is more likely that you don't quite understand what it is that I am saying. I'm not putting millennial views on the level of a political agenda. What I'm saying is that, if the Church does not say which view is the right one, then a minister being the deciding factor on the basis of his ordination is an abuse of the office. That's not what the office is for.

As I said before, I went for years and years to church, listened to many, many sermons, and it was not until I came into the Presbyterian setting that I witnessed a so called 'necessity' for side issues. Which millennial view is a side issue, because the Bible does not tell us which view it right. Witness: the Church has allowed three different views of the millennium. If the Bible was definitively preaching one, or if it was opened up to us by other texts that are clear, then the Church would have said which view is the right one. But she doesn't, because she doesn't know.

Notice that WCF I, vii tells us that some other text of Scripture might clarify what the one text does not. But the point is that the Bible is clear in one way or another. Well, if the Bible was clear, then why does the Church allow three different, and to some degree mutually exclusive, views of the millennium? Could it be that the Bible does not teach which view is right? And could that possibly be because it is not necessary for us to know which one is right? So why should a minister preach one of the views? What could possibly be his reason?

I’m curious as to what you mean by this statement. What advantage does the continental Reformed confessions have over Presbyterian ones in this regard? What haven do you think you find in them?

Is there something in Westminster that requires the abuses you apparently have experienced? Or is it just bad preachers being allowed to act unbiblically?

In a continental Reformed church there would be no question about this. For a minister to preach a preterist interpretation, or anything that the Bible does not expressly teach in the various forms that we duly derive express teachings, is just not accepted. The Confessions state what is necessary, but certainly not all that is necessary that follows directly from these doctrines. What a minister may preach is what can be determined to be what Christ taught, and no more. He may not suppose that Christ would have taught this or that on his own, because he may not say in Christ's name what Christ did not tell him to say. And when he's speaking on the pulpit he is speaking in Christ's name, from His office which he grants to the Church's leaders. It takes a lot of the minister's own words to explain some things sometime, but that does not mean that he is going beyond Scripture.

His own convictions of what what the Bible teaches. What we mean by that is all the difference. What you are suggesting is what the Bible's teachings mean to the person, those are the convictions we're talking about. But what I'm saying is the teachings of the Bible, which the minister is fully convicted of, these are the convictions spoken of here. They do not include, but are distinct from, things not expressly taught in Scripture but upon which he has derived his own convictions. I am not disparaging those second convictions, but only saying that the two have to be kept distinct, and that the second class of convictions do not pertain to the office.

No, there is nothing wrong with the Westminster Standards. They too uphold what I am trying, though poorly, to put across here. I find that I do not need to recant my oaths to these standards. In fact, in my Presbyterian church it is these very standards that I am using in my defense, trying to be transferred out. There's nothing wrong with the WS.

I would say that there is a modern tendency in Presbyterianism. If we go back to the example of the Presbyterian author who wrote a study book on how the greatness of the Great Commission was not appreciated or understood until one first adopted a Postmillennial doctrine, then you can see that tendency. No one is saying anything about it. Is it because no one notices what's going on here? I think that this indeed the case. Presbyterians are so used to men adding their own perspectives from the pulpit, without clearly distinguishing perspective from doctrine, and often allowing the confusion to flourish, that no one is noticing that this man has placed something that is supposed to not necessary to a position where it has become a prerequisite: it holds a degree of normativity over doctrines that normally have a higher status. Something that is not certain has a normative control over, a priority to, something that is certain. This is something that is new to the Confession. You won't find justification for that in WCF, I, or anywhere else.

I'm getting out of the Presbyterian church and going back to the continental church because ministers are freely allowed to add their own personal convictions to those doctrinal convictions when they preach the gospel. There is nothing to stop them from doing that. In the continental Reformed it has never been allowed, and they're not about to change that. In the continental Reformed, where they do not have an expressly state RPW other than the Catechism's explication of the second commandment, they rigorously and rigidly apply a regulatory principle of worship at that point. A minister may preach as gospel what is not expressly or necessarily gospel; he has no mandate for that, and may be held in account for using unwarranted licence.

I think that what the churches need in our day is the preaching of the gospel. They don't need men's agendas. A minister is to be open to being used by the Spirit when he preaches the gospel. We know what the Spirit says to the churches, and the churches themselves bear witness to that through their confessional standard. There is no need to go beyond that, or to insert things that are not sure. Ministers would do well to stick to the mandate of the church that ordained them, and they would do better to stick to the mandate of Christ who sent them.
 
Ken:

It's a good idea to take what I say with a grain of salt. Use lots of it.

But, if I may come to my own defense a bit, I would like to ask:

At what point does a minister's conjectures become the Word of God?
And where do we find the commandment, the commission from Christ, that men are to fill in the blanks as they see fit, according to their own convictions?

I thought that a minister was a messenger of Christ's, bring His gospel. Since when do messengers add their own things to the message they are sent to deliver? I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard? And where is his commission to do so? Where do we find a text in Scripture that commissions a minister to do that?

What I find disturbing is that ministers feel it so necessary to also preach the things, to conjecture on things, that the Bible does not reveal. There seems to be the sentiment that to leave out those conjectures is to leave out part of Scripture, as if the Bible is not sufficient on its own in what it reveals. We not only have to have the comfort that God will triumph, and that He already knows how He will triumph, that it is already determined by Him in all His power and might, His foreordaining omniscience, but we now have to also have man's conjectures and predictions as to how this will all work out in order to have the "full" Scripture preached to us. It is not the full gospel until men have added their conjectures to the things that are expressly written down for us, or that are derived from necessity.

But even more disturbing is that some of these men make these personal convictions to be necessary pre-convictions to other doctrines. For example, I read a book that declared that one could not know the greatness of the Great Commission until one had adopted a Postmillennial view. Not only was Postmillennialism made into a doctrine, but here it has become a prerequisite doctrine to understanding other parts of the Bible that are clearly and expressly stated in the Bible. The Confessions (the witness of the Church as to Scriptural doctrine) does not make Postmillennialism necessary, but this author makes it a prerequisite to understanding the Bible. From a liberty of conscience to a pre-required stance to understand the Bible.

You are not exempt from this, Ken, because you don't have the same kind of ecclesiastical oversight stucture. You still have your confessional-ecclesiastical standards. You still don't have a special letter from Christ commissioning you to fill in the blanks where you feel it necessary, based upon your own convictions.

Gabriel and Tom are right about some things. My view of Reformed theological limits is not generally acceptable in modern-day Presbyterianism anymore. I am doing my best to seek a rightful and graceful way out of the Presbyterian church, and back to the continental Reformed. I am not at all breaking my oaths to the Westminster Standards, which I made when I joined a Presbyterian church. I don't see the need for that. What I want to break from is the particular application of them that I found so objectionable, that at the time I made my vows I did not know about. I now understand, but I did not back then. What I vowed to I did not break, and have no wish to break. I find the Westminster Confessional standard to be soundly Reformed, and a good balance to the Three Forms of Unity. I do not find any warrant in them at all for ministers adding their own convictions to the revealed doctrines. Sure, I believe that it is warranted that ministers be convicted of the Confessional standards, and that this is quite necessary to the preaching of the Word; in that sense they should add conviction to the doctrines. But that is not adding anything to the doctrinal standards. I find no warrant, either in the Confessions nor in the Bible that a man is called upon to rely upon his own convictions where the Bible does not reveal things. A minister is a messenger of the gospel, and his own added convictions are not part of that revealed gospel. His office does not allow him to expand the message that he is to preach.

John V,

You are scaring me, brother. I think that you are very confused about the authority of God's Word, and it's relation to the Church's confession.

Firstly, let me answer some of your questions

The minister, speaking from the pulpit, speaks with the authority of God in so far as what he speaks conforms to God's Word. Therefore, it in a sense becomes the word of God as it conforms to God's revelation, so that is not on the authority of the one who speaks (the preacher) but based on the authority for whom he speaks (God). j

Men are not allowed to "fill in the blanks" in Scripture. Where God speaks, we must speak, where God ceases to reveal, we must be silent. I think for some reason you don't think God reveals anything about eschatology. We must teach it for the very reason that God has revealed it.

Where you are scaring me is how you relate the confession and Scripture. You seem to think that to speak beyond the confession is to speak beyond Scripture. You functionally equate Scripture and the confession. So that whatever Scripture says, the confession says, and whatever the confession says, Scripture says.
You say:
I thought that a minister was a messenger of Christ's, bring His gospel. Since when do messengers add their own things to the message they are sent to deliver? I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard? And where is his commission to do so? Where do we find a text in Scripture that commissions a minister to do that?
You are right that a minister is a messenger of Christ, to bring his gospel. So far, so good. Ministers do not have the right to speak as ministers beyond what God reveals, they are to preach sola Scriptura and tota Scripture; so far so good. then all of a sudden you say "I thought that minister was to be convicted of the whole of the Confessional standard. When did it become that his own convictions could be added onto or inserted into that standard?" Where did this come from in your line of reasoning? Somehow preaching all of Scripture becomes equated with all of the confessional standard. You say that ministers can't add to the message that they were sent to preach, but that means they can't go beyond the standards.

John, the Westminster standards or the 3 forms are not on par with Scripture. They are fallible documents. Let me ask you something; what did people do before those standards were written? When the Scriptures teach that ministers are to preach the gospel, when they are to preach all of the inspired Scriptures, there was no reference to our confessional standards. You can not equate them.

Our confessions have NO AUTHORITY IN THEMSELVES! All authority which they have has nothing to do with the fact that they are found in the confession, but that they reflect the teaching of Scripture. It is a reflective kind of authority. In so far as they acurately reflect God's Word they are authoritative.

Speaking beyond the confession should never be equated with speaking beyond the Scriptures. It is certainly the case that someone can speak beyond the confession and Scripture. But they are not to be equated.

You then proceed to say of this view of the confession:
My view of Reformed theological limits is not generally acceptable in modern-day Presbyterianism anymore

Well John, after hearing what your view of "reformed theologica limits" are, I would have to say that they were never accepted in any kind of Presbyterianism. In fact, they seem to not be reformed at all, and they sound much more like the views expressed by the Roman Catholic church, than any protestant Church.

think about what you write here:
I do not find any warrant in them at all for ministers adding their own convictions to the revealed doctrines. Sure, I believe that it is warranted that ministers be convicted of the Confessional standards, and that this is quite necessary to the preaching of the Word; in that sense they should add conviction to the doctrines. But that is not adding anything to the doctrinal standards. I find no warrant, either in the Confessions nor in the Bible that a man is called upon to rely upon his own convictions where the Bible does not reveal things.

to you the "revealed doctrines" are what the confession says. But, my friend the confession is not revelation! You say that the only right of the minister is to add his convictions to the confession because he has no right to add convictions to things which the Bible does not reveal. My friend all I can say is that if anyone ever said anything like this in a presbytery exam, if the presbytery was worth its weight in salt, they would fail him immediately. That is a rejection of Sola Scriptura. It is a view that says Scripture plus confession. In fact I don't even know if it stops there. You are basically saying that confession is Scripture.

And by the way, I don't know why you think that you would find that in the 3 forms. In fact, the continental tradition does not have as much authority over the minister and the local congregation that the presbyterian tradition. So it seems to me like you are moving in the wrong direction if you want to attend a Church that will bind it's ministers to only speaking what the confession says, and allowing them nothing more than to add their conviction to the confession

As I said in the beginning. You are seriously scaring me with this kind of talk.
 
Gabriel:

I think what is scaring you is not what I'm saying but what you think I'm saying. As I said, I'm not explaining it very well.

But I too have been scared of late. I honestly did not know that this type of thing was allowed in Presbyterianism when I first joined. I left the continental Reformed because they had no standards for office. I had no idea at all that I was joining a church that allowed men to mandate their own persuasions as regulatory for doctrine for their congregations. It just never occurred to me to question about that. I assumed that the same standard held for all Reformed churches, that the doctrinal standards were the guiding principles to Biblical theology. It came as a shock to me, and I am continuing to be shocked and amazed.

First, let's get this out of the way. r.e., The Confessional standard is not on par with the Bible.

The Confessional standard may not have anything in it that is not fully grounded in the Scriptures. There is no appeal to any other source, but to the Scriptures alone. There can be no doubt but that the Bible teaches what the Confessional standard says it teaches. The Confessional standard may not assert what the Bible does not assert. If it does, if it is not the witness of the Church to what she has always believed, but has added something that is not Biblically grounded, then it ceases to be a witness of the true Church.

It is not the witness of merely the Presbyterian churches. It is a covenant for the Presbyterian churches, to be sure; it is the bond of common faith that ties all of Presbyterianism together. But it is broader than that. The part of the true Church that accepts the Three Forms of Unity for their covenant of faith does not disagree with the witness to the faith that the Westminster Standards stand for. Nor do those who have adopted the Westminster Standards disagree with the witness to the faith that the Three Forms of Unity stand for. The general consensus is that they bear witness to the same faith.

Each confessional standard uses their way of saying things: each confines its terminology to the Biblical terminology, and yet explains the same doctrines in different ways. Not different doctrines, but different ways of saying the same things. Ministers do the same thing when they preach.

There are many things that are not in the Confessions which we find in the Bible. The WCF, for example, does not say that you have to believe that a big fish swallowed Jonah, or that Samson lost his strength when his hair was cut, or that the miracles that Jesus did were real medical miracles. There's a lot of things that are not in the Confessions that are in the Bible.

The Confessional standard is the credal standard of the Church. As it to say, "This we believe. This we believe the Bible teaches, against all the doctrines that men have thought to raise up instead of the pure gospel."

It is fully subject to, and derives its authority from, the Bible and the Spirit's witnes through the Church.

So don't get the idea from that I am advocating that a minister may not preach what is not in the Confessional standards. Of course he may. There are a lot of things that the Bible clearly teaches that are not in the Confessions. What we have been talking about, though, is things that are neither in the Bible nor in the Confessional standards.

For example, the Church has allowed three different, and to some degree mutually exclusive, views of the millennium. The Bible teaches lots about eschatology, but not enough about the millennium that the Church may determine which of the three the Bible is teaching. The Bible cannot teach all three. Only one can be right. But the Church does not know which one. That's because the Bible does not say. That is what the Church is saying by allowing three views: you have the liberty to hold any one of those three as a personal view. And as long as it does not impose itself upon things that are more clearly revealed, there's nothing wrong with that. To have three vibrant views being discussed in the Church is healthy for godly discussion and upbuilding of the faith. It helps to drive out errors, to refine our theological understandings. But the clear message is that the Bible does not say which one is the right one.

So though the Bible teaches a great deal about eschatology, the millennium is not the central focus of that teaching. It does not teach which millennial view we ought to believe.

Because we believe the Bible is perspicuous and sufficient, we must be inclined to accept that which millennial view to believe is not important to salvation, to faith, to life, or to worship. I am not saying that the Bible does not teach about eschatology, but that the Bible is saying that which millennial view we believe is not imortant. If it were important it would tell us what to believe. But it doesn't; and the Church bears witness to that by allowing three different views under liberty of conscience.

A minister adding his millennial view to what it preached is a breach of that confessional standard. He fails to recognize the difference between liberty of conscience and Bible doctrine. The Bible does not teach a doctrine of the millennium. It is not Bible teaching, and is not Bible doctrine.

Surely, each of the three views are Biblical in the sense that they derive all the criteria and reasoning from the Bible alone. In that sense all three are equally Biblical. But at best only one can be true. Only one can be Biblical in the sense that only that one is the truth. And yet none of the three are Biblical in the sense that the Bible teaches one of them.

If the Bible teaches one of the views, then the Church is in deep error by allowing three views. But the Church allows three views in the only way she may, and that is as liberties of conscience. There is no obligation upon anyone for any of the three, but each may be convicted as he is led to believe. Which millennial view to believe is a liberty of conscience, not a doctrinal obligation. That there is or will be some form millennial reign is to be believed by all, for that is doctrinal. But which one to believe is a liberty of conscience. And a liberty of conscience may only be held within the confessional limits, so that it is subordinate to the revealed doctrines in every way.

This liberty of conscience is a pesronal liberty. It has nothing to do with office in the Church. A minister is not sent to proclaim his personal liberties of conscience to his congregation; he is sent to preach the gospel of salvation. And which millennial view to believe is not necessary for salvation or for worship. He has no mandate to settle the matter as to which one to believe. That's the Church's job, not his. He is sent to preach the gospel; that's his calling.

Now you can apply this to which creation view is to be believed (although there is a difference on that matter), which lapsarian view is to be believed, or which view to believe on a number of other things which are liberties of conscience. They are liberties of conscience because the Bible speaks of them, but does not declare which of the particular views to believe. To the degree that the Bible speaks on them, what it says is to be believed; to the degree that it does not declare what is to believed, man is free to believe within the confines of what is to be believed.

The Church has accumulated confessional or credal standards all along. As different teachings and opinions arose, the Church has continued to steadfastly bear witness to the original faith. It is not men who have done this, but faithful men led by the Spirit. So there are three things that must be observed in the Confessional standards: first, appeal to Scripture; second, prayer before the deliberations, with thanksgiving afterwards; and third, the blessing of the Spirit. These three are necessary, I believe, to any doctrinal standard for the Church.

What I mean by doctrinal standard here is that the Church explains to us what the Bible is saying. The Bible is still the standard, the only standard. But where dispute has broken out over how some passage or doctrine is to be understood, the Church has asked for the help of the Spirit, searched the Scriptures carefully, and been led by the Spirit to settle the matter according to Scripture.

The Confessional standard is such. It is the credal statement of the Church to her membership and to her posterity. That is the authority that they represent. We are not left is a cultural void, but we have the witness of the Church right from the time that the New Testament was written, from the first controversies to the present. To the end that they point solely to Scripture as our only authority, they are our authority.

So it is with ministers who preach the gospel too. To the end that they point solely to the message of salvation, to right doctrine for faith and life and worship, to the gospel as our only authority for these things, so ministers have the authority of Christ Himself. To the degree that they represent their own personal convictions on matters the Bible does not teach, to that degree they are no more authority than any other man. Just as I, who am not ordained, may not stand on the pulpit proclaiming my own millennial views, so also a minister may not do so either. On millennial views he is no better than any other man, no more authoritative, and has no more right to use the office and the pulpit for that than any other man. The Bible does not teach which millennial view to believe. The witness for this is that the Church has allowed men to hold three different views of the millennium, and as such may only do so in subjection to revealed doctrines, and as liberties of conscience.

That would be impossible unless it was allowed as a liberty of conscience. The Church does not confess that three different things that are mutually exclusive can be true at the same time. So this is a clear witness to us that holding to one of the three millennial views is a liberty of conscience, not a matter of doctrine.

So, has that clarified for you what I mean by the Confessional standards? Let me sum up. There is a great deal for a minister to add to his sermons which the Confessional standards do not speak of. They are still in the Bible. And the minister may use the same terminology and explain things differently and to a great deal more detail. He is not departing at all from the doctrinal standards of the Church, the Bible, in doing so. But some things the Bible does not teach, and they are not in the Confessions, although they may personally be held fully within the confines of the doctrinal standards.


It is our duty to know the difference between things that are liberties of conscience and things that are obligated by the Bible. We need to know the doctrines and their limits. And especially a minister ought to be teaching his congregation the difference. His own example should be an example his congregation may follow.

The Church has said that three different personal views are allowed, not just one, within the doctrinal limits. The Church is not saying there are three different doctrines on the same matter which are all true; but that the Church does not know which is true because the Bible does not say. All she knows is that the fourth one is not allowed because it denies or goes contrary to other doctrines that are revealed: Dispensational millennial eschatology is not allowed because it does not agree with the Confessional standards. This shows us two limits: first the limit of doctrine as to eschatology, i.e., that which is taught and that which is not taught; and secondly, where even personal liberties of conscience go overboard, where personal views are not held in subjection to revealed doctrines, but rather begin to subject doctrine to them.
 
You might be misunderstanding me here, but it is more likely that you don't quite understand what it is that I am saying. I'm not putting millennial views on the level of a political agenda. What I'm saying is that, if the Church does not say which view is the right one, then a minister being the deciding factor on the basis of his ordination is an abuse of the office. That's not what the office is for.

As I said before, I went for years and years to church, listened to many, many sermons, and it was not until I came into the Presbyterian setting that I witnessed a so called 'necessity' for side issues. Which millennial view is a side issue, because the Bible does not tell us which view it right. Witness: the Church has allowed three different views of the millennium. If the Bible was definitively preaching one, or if it was opened up to us by other texts that are clear, then the Church would have said which view is the right one. But she doesn't, because she doesn't know.

Notice that WCF I, vii tells us that some other text of Scripture might clarify what the one text does not. But the point is that the Bible is clear in one way or another. Well, if the Bible was clear, then why does the Church allow three different, and to some degree mutually exclusive, views of the millennium? Could it be that the Bible does not teach which view is right? And could that possibly be because it is not necessary for us to know which one is right? So why should a minister preach one of the views? What could possibly be his reason?



In a continental Reformed church there would be no question about this. For a minister to preach a preterist interpretation, or anything that the Bible does not expressly teach in the various forms that we duly derive express teachings, is just not accepted. The Confessions state what is necessary, but certainly not all that is necessary that follows directly from these doctrines. What a minister may preach is what can be determined to be what Christ taught, and no more. He may not suppose that Christ would have taught this or that on his own, because he may not say in Christ's name what Christ did not tell him to say. And when he's speaking on the pulpit he is speaking in Christ's name, from His office which he grants to the Church's leaders. It takes a lot of the minister's own words to explain some things sometime, but that does not mean that he is going beyond Scripture.

His own convictions of what what the Bible teaches. What we mean by that is all the difference. What you are suggesting is what the Bible's teachings mean to the person, those are the convictions we're talking about. But what I'm saying is the teachings of the Bible, which the minister is fully convicted of, these are the convictions spoken of here. They do not include, but are distinct from, things not expressly taught in Scripture but upon which he has derived his own convictions. I am not disparaging those second convictions, but only saying that the two have to be kept distinct, and that the second class of convictions do not pertain to the office.

No, there is nothing wrong with the Westminster Standards. They too uphold what I am trying, though poorly, to put across here. I find that I do not need to recant my oaths to these standards. In fact, in my Presbyterian church it is these very standards that I am using in my defense, trying to be transferred out. There's nothing wrong with the WS.

I would say that there is a modern tendency in Presbyterianism. If we go back to the example of the Presbyterian author who wrote a study book on how the greatness of the Great Commission was not appreciated or understood until one first adopted a Postmillennial doctrine, then you can see that tendency. No one is saying anything about it. Is it because no one notices what's going on here? I think that this indeed the case. Presbyterians are so used to men adding their own perspectives from the pulpit, without clearly distinguishing perspective from doctrine, and often allowing the confusion to flourish, that no one is noticing that this man has placed something that is supposed to not necessary to a position where it has become a prerequisite: it holds a degree of normativity over doctrines that normally have a higher status. Something that is not certain has a normative control over, a priority to, something that is certain. This is something that is new to the Confession. You won't find justification for that in WCF, I, or anywhere else.

I'm getting out of the Presbyterian church and going back to the continental church because ministers are freely allowed to add their own personal convictions to those doctrinal convictions when they preach the gospel. There is nothing to stop them from doing that. In the continental Reformed it has never been allowed, and they're not about to change that. In the continental Reformed, where they do not have an expressly state RPW other than the Catechism's explication of the second commandment, they rigorously and rigidly apply a regulatory principle of worship at that point. A minister may preach as gospel what is not expressly or necessarily gospel; he has no mandate for that, and may be held in account for using unwarranted licence.

I think that what the churches need in our day is the preaching of the gospel. They don't need men's agendas. A minister is to be open to being used by the Spirit when he preaches the gospel. We know what the Spirit says to the churches, and the churches themselves bear witness to that through their confessional standard. There is no need to go beyond that, or to insert things that are not sure. Ministers would do well to stick to the mandate of the church that ordained them, and they would do better to stick to the mandate of Christ who sent them.

Ok, I think another problem has surfaced. I don't think that you understand, or maybe don't even hold to, the doctrine of the perspecuity of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear and knowable, just because of the one who revealed them. God reveals them so that we might know them. This does not mean that everyone will agree on them. No orhtodox Christian would fail to believe that the Bible clearly teaches the diety of Christ, yet some people don't agree. The Bible is clear, because garuantees that it is clear. We can know what Scripture teaches.

Deut. 29:29 The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

The secret things, which God has not chosen to reveal to us belong only to Jehovah. BUT, all of those things that God has revealed are ours, we can know them and we can live by them.

Premise 1: We can know anything that God has revealed

On to premise 2, It is clear that God has revealed eschatalogical teaching. Think about the book of revelation, and of the many many prophecies concerning the last things. A huge chunck of the Bible speaks teaches eschatological matters.

Premise 2: God has revealed eschatological doctrines


Conclusion: We can know eschatological doctrines.



The reason the confession doesn't talk about eschatology is not because we can't authoritatively know what the Bible says about it. It doesn't speak on eschatology because it is not an essential test of orthodoxy. A man is not disqualified for service in the Church because he is not amill or postmill. When the divines (to speak to the Westminster) sat down to draft the confession the goal was not: let's come up with a list of every fact that we know about Scripture, so that we can make all of our ministers agree with us and teach it. Not at all. They sat down to draft a confession that would simply determine the bounds of orhtodoxy in their pulpits. They allowed diversity on certain issues, not because they thought nobody could know authoritatively, but because they wanted as broad of an orhtodox communion as possible.

Again, I think there is a problem in your view of the relationship between Scripture and the confession. Following your logic, it seems as if you think that everything that someone could know from the Bible is in the confession. And if it's not in the confession, it can't be known. And if it can't be known, it is mere speculation. And if it is mere speculation, that it ought not be preached from pulpits.

The problem with this line of reasoning is the relationship between the confession and the Bible is flawed.
 
The Confessional standard may not have anything in it that is not fully grounded in the Scriptures. There is no appeal to any other source, but to the Scriptures alone. There can be no doubt but that the Bible teaches what the Confessional standard says it teaches. The Confessional standard may not assert what the Bible does not assert. If it does, if it is not the witness of the Church to what she has always believed, but has added something that is not Biblically grounded, then it ceases to be a witness of the true Church.

I know that you keep saying that you don't hold the confession to the same level as Scripture, but then you go and say something like this. The only thing that I can conclude is that you creedally affirm the subordination of the secondary standards (confession) but in actual practice, you make it functionally equivalent.

I don't know how you could make the following statement:
There can be no doubt but that the Bible teaches what the Confessional standard says it teaches.
Of course there can be doubt! This statement is functionally saying that the confession is infallible! If there can be no doubt, than it is a sure deal. I don't know why you would say that, in fact it is unconfessional. The WCF ch 1 says that creeds are not the supreme judge in controversy. But what your saying is that there is no doubt but that the Scripture says what the confession says it teaches, and therefore the confession could be the final aribiter of truth, because the Bible says whatever the confession says it does.



After reading that I just can't finish your post, at risk of having to do bodily harm to myself by repeatedely running into a wall. I tried to read a little more, and got to where you said that the Bible doesn't teach a millennial view, and just had to stop. I think that it is abundantly clear by opening your Bible to Revelation 20 that it does, and I think it is abundantly clear to everyone else too. They might not all agree on exactly what that view is, but one is taught. Furthermore, in eschatology people use the term millennium (amill, postmill, premill) to describe more than rev 20, but to encompass their entire eschatological system. That is more of a commentary on how we use words than anything else.

I might repost to your confessional ideas, but as far as talking to you about eschatology, I'm done. I think this horse is dead

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
 
Okay, Gabriel, I know you've been pulling my leg. After all, we're talking about Reformed here.

I agree with you on your last statement too. Let's call it a day on this one. I think we've both had our chance at this. I learned my lesson. I need to work on refining a statement on this issue. I know I failed greatly in putting it across rightly. Thanks for trying to sharpen me up on this.
 
Well, thanks for interacting with me on this subject everyone. I have come to this conclusion.

The preterist interprets Matt 24 because the time texts lead him to the conclusion that it is the most reasonable interpretation of those available. (preterists, futurist, historicist, idealist) And because it is the most reasonable, it is therefore necessary. Josephus supports the preterist interpretation, but is not essential to it.

Also, I think it would be wrong for a preterist preacher to say, "The Bible teaches that the prophecy of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD in the destruction of Jerusalem." Because, in fact, that is not what the Bible teaches.

I think it would be equally wrong for the futurist preacher to say, "The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ could come back 'at any moment'. Because, in fact, that is not what the Bible teaches.

I am not really sure what the disagreement between the Presbyterians in this thread is all about, but I will chalk that up to my Baptist ignorance. :handshake:
 
Not to be :deadhorse:

You might be misunderstanding me here, but it is more likely that you don't quite understand what it is that I am saying. I'm not putting millennial views on the level of a political agenda. What I'm saying is that, if the Church does not say which view is the right one, then a minister being the deciding factor on the basis of his ordination is an abuse of the office. That's not what the office is for.

As I said before, I went for years and years to church, listened to many, many sermons, and it was not until I came into the Presbyterian setting that I witnessed a so called 'necessity' for side issues. Which millennial view is a side issue, because the Bible does not tell us which view it right. Witness: the Church has allowed three different views of the millennium. If the Bible was definitively preaching one, or if it was opened up to us by other texts that are clear, then the Church would have said which view is the right one. But she doesn't, because she doesn't know. …


In a continental Reformed church there would be no question about this. For a minister to preach a preterist interpretation, or anything that the Bible does not expressly teach in the various forms that we duly derive express teachings, is just not accepted. The Confessions state what is necessary, but certainly not all that is necessary that follows directly from these doctrines. What a minister may preach is what can be determined to be what Christ taught, and no more. He may not suppose that Christ would have taught this or that on his own, because he may not say in Christ's name what Christ did not tell him to say. And when he's speaking on the pulpit he is speaking in Christ's name, from His office which he grants to the Church's leaders. It takes a lot of the minister's own words to explain some things sometime, but that does not mean that he is going beyond Scripture.

This is a rather puzzling statement based on what I know of continental Reformed confessions and some practice.

Would you agree with me that someone like Kim Riddlebarger would be classified as continental Reformed insofar as he subscribes to the Three Forms being a minister in the URCNA?

That being the case, is he just being inconsistent to affirm (as least in print) that historicist amillennialism is the (not “a”) Reformed eschatology? And isn’t it also true that the Three Forms condemns “chiliasm” which would seem to eliminate premillennialism as an option for Three Forms officers? Doesn’t it explicitly say which form is wrong, thus implying which forms may be right?

Am I missing something here?

Sounds like you eschatological options are more limited in the continental churches.
 
Well, thanks for interacting with me on this subject everyone. I have come to this conclusion.

The preterist interprets Matt 24 because the time texts lead him to the conclusion that it is the most reasonable interpretation of those available. (preterists, futurist, historicist, idealist) And because it is the most reasonable, it is therefore necessary. Josephus supports the preterist interpretation, but is not essential to it.

Also, I think it would be wrong for a preterist preacher to say, "The Bible teaches that the prophecy of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD in the destruction of Jerusalem." Because, in fact, that is not what the Bible teaches.

I think it would be equally wrong for the futurist preacher to say, "The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ could come back 'at any moment'. Because, in fact, that is not what the Bible teaches.

I am not really sure what the disagreement between the Presbyterians in this thread is all about, but I will chalk that up to my Baptist ignorance. :handshake:

If that is what you want to think the preterist believes, that is fine, but it is fact not what we believe. I don't simply think that is the most reasonable position, as if I am not sure, but. . . . well. . . I think so. No, I believe that the Bible teaches the preterist position, not that it is the most reasonable, rather, it is the Biblical position. Therefore when I am in the pulpit, I have no problem whatsoever in saying thus sayeth the Lord. And then show the actual interpretation of the text (for example matt 24) is that these things were going to happen in their lifetime, and they in fact happened in the destruction of Jerusalem.

So again, you might not agree, but if you think that preterists hold to their convictions because they are simply the most plausible, then I don't think you truly understand the position.

If I wasn't fully confident in the interpretation I would not teach it. But I do teach it, because I am.

I am not trying to sound arrogant, but simply to help you actually understand the conviction of the orthodox preterist.

:handshake:
 
temple/70ad

you said:Doesn't the Preterist do the same thing? Doesn't the Preterist say, "The Bible teaches that Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD." Well, actually, that is not what the Bible teaches. The preterist teaches that, but the Bible does not.
I have never been to Jerusalem. Jesus said the temple would be destroyed within a generation,,,,,Believing what Jesus said,I can come to understand that the temple is no longer standing.
If Josephus,,,Fox news,,, or anyone else reports on it as a fact,should I despise it as a non biblical source?
I do not think the postmill idea's are based on secular records, but rather scripture. They should be debated on it's merits.
It does not hurt if extra biblical sources are cited to confirm what the theologian proposes,,,if it is used for this purpose.
When a secular archeologist uncovers something,like a hittite city, no one seems to question that as much. Is it not similar?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top