Is premillennialism at variance with the teaching of the WCF? (I am not referring to dispensationalism, but historic premillennialism).

I'm not expert in the eschatological views.

It seems in the PCA one can be postmillenial, amillenial, or classical premillenialist (not modern dispensational premillenial) and subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

As you may be aware, amillenial is the majority, postmill a strong minority, and classical premillenial a very small minority. Some also combine attributes of amill and postmill and term themselves something like Mr. GI Williamson, "optimistic amillenialist" or "non-utopian postmillenialist."

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

So, within the PCA, while it may be the least popular, it is held to be a position consistent with the WFC. Is that right?

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to dispy pre-mil. They are a small minority IMO. (and mostly older)

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

Please be careful with the heresy label. Not every error is heresy. Heresy is a powerful word. A person who espouses heresy is a heretic, and a heretic is not a Christian.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

On what basis would most within the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?

I agree, I think to be fair it is usually called error. But it is so full of error that I can see how some might consider has so much wrong with it it has to be heretical.

-----Added 8/23/2009 at 11:22:04 EST-----

There is a rumor that the only Historic Premillennialist PCA simply claim that because they have to have some sort of Premil belief to teach at TEDS (Trinty). Just kidding, but not really.

__________________
Alan Hughes
PCA
Lake Zurich, Illinois

If you think I'm a Hyper-Calvinist, God planned that thought before the foundation of the Earth. If you try to tell me that God only planned some things and not all things, then your problem is with God not me.

I had one conservative PCA pastor tell me that historic Pre Mil should be taken as an exception to the Confession, although it was one which was widely allowed in the PCA. (I'm Amil, and we were discussing a not so hypothetical 'hypothetical'.)

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

From the WLC:

There is no allowance in the Westminster Standards for a premil 1000 year period of time between the resurrection and the judgment.

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Elder, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"When I find the time, I'm going to write the social history of bourbon."

Thanks. I think the teaching of a General Resurrection and General Judgment do indeed create a huge issue for Premillennialsim. So how could it be that at the Westminster Assembly there were a number of Premillennialists. It is my understanding that the prolucator of the assembly, William Twisse, was premillenarian, as were most, if not all, of the Congregationalists.

I think, if I remember rightly, that the Westminster Standards do not take any official position regarding the three main millennial views, but that at least one of the three documents (I forget which one) takes a slightly postmil view of eschatology.

And, yes, William Twisse, the prolocutor (moderator) of the Westminster Assembly was historic premil.

Historic premil is one of the oldest millennial views the church has espoused. It is not an "error" (sorry Bill!) but merely one of the three eschatological views that the church has teased out of the Scriptures since the closing of the canon.

The reason many people think that the historic premil view is an error is because they get it confused with dispensationalism, which has, frankly, poisoned the well against the historic premil view since dispensationalism was invented in the early 19th century.

But, again, the historic premil view is a very old view and has always been of the three basic eschatological views.

And, one of these days, we're gonna take over! (heh, heh)

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.alexandermaclaren.wordpress.com
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.spurgeonswords.wordpress.com

Devout souls do not take offence at the depths and difficulties of God's Word, but are, thereby, drawn to intenser contemplation of them. - Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910)

Great point about historic premil being one of three main views and not what should be labeled an "error," Richard. Sure, it might be an error but so is either amil or postmil. The fact that it is a minority view should not be reason for unfair consideration or labeling.

__________________
Andrew Thornquist My Photo Album
Calvinistic Baptist
Ukiah, California
To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!

So it would be reasonable to assume that someone like the late Dr. James M. Boice, who was not only premill, but also taught a pretrib rapture and could be justifiably labeled a dispensationalist, was required to take exceptions on these points at ordination?

Have individuals asserted a commitment to Full Confessional Subscription and also Premillennialism? If so, then how would they harmonize the teaching of a General Resurrection/Judgment in the Confession with Premillennialism?

Sorry about the confussion. I meant this to be a reply to your second post & so I said "Yes". Most PCA people would consider HISTORIC pre-mil to be allowable.

In fact I have known (and served with) some that held to the dispy version.

Sorry that I was unclear.

I think so, and some of the other posts here would confirm that.

Remember, that each presbytery determines the fitness (call, theology, morals) of a candidate and evaluates any exceptions that might be requested. It is possible that someone emphasizing a premillennial eschatology might not be approved in a particular presbytery, but I've not heard of that.

The Westminster Standards do not say much about eschatology generally, and particularly about millennialism. Mainly, they state:

1) all men will be raised
2) all men will be judged
3) Christ will return

The clear implication is a single resurrection, or as part of the same general event.

Any hint of dispensationalism would run into possible differences with the standards in other aspects, but I think one could be premillennial, classically.
Covenant theology is consistent, and reflected through the standards.

Wisely again, the Divines were careful as some aspects of millenialism were unclear from Scripture, so they were always conscious of not binding men's conscience from things that were not clear from Scripture.

I appreciate your input. I guess my question is "How would someone attempt to assert full subscription to the Confession and premillennialism concurrently?" I realize that the Confession doesn't speak directly to the millennial issue. I have heard some do so by saying that the Confession's eschatology is "minimalistic" and that the authors of the Confession were seeking to assert what must be confessed. The idea being that one could confess "much more," such as more than one resurrection/judgment and premillennialism. Has anyone heard of this type of approach before? If so is there anything in print which advocates this line of reasoning?

Thank you.

In the PCA, a candidate is required to state and have evaluated by his presbytery any differences with any "statement or proposition" in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechism).

The Westminster Standards aren't intended to cover everything, while at the same time they represent a "system of doctrine."

I believe the convenor of the Westminster Divines, Jeremiah Burroughs leaned (classical) premillennial. Here's a citation, Dictionary of Premillennial Theology By Mal Couch that says Mr. Burroughs had a premillennial view:http://books.google.com/books?id=rPe...age&q=&f=false

What the Confession states is minimal- that does not mean what it does say about eschatology or millennialism is "minimal" to the system of doctrine, only that there is not a great deal of specificity about details of eschatology in the Confession because it is not clear enough to bind men's consciences or unity on those details.

My observation is someone who would want to emphasize (classical) premillennialism would not be a good fit in the system of doctrine and would either de-emphasize it, present the other views, or move toward the other views over time. Not sure that would happen, but it would seem to be the trajectory.

The PCA in particular self-consciously is not going to emphasize or divide over millennial views beyond Christ's return, a resurrection and judgment.

I don't really think it matters whether or not there are some modern day slobbering and crazed postmillers, or erudite and easily offended amillers who would like to assert that you can not hold strictly to the confession and be historic premil. The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually penned our confession who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.

I think that any advocate of confessional subscription who would come up with a reinterpretation of our confessions in such a manner that would have ended up excluding the very founders of that confession are heading down a foolish path.

I also think they need to read a little bit more in the arena of church history, and eschatology. Chuck Hill has written a great little work on the predominantly premillenial views of the early church entitled Regnum Caelorum. That would be a great place to start. It is an historical survey with some theological analysis involved, and a very good bit of even handed scholarship. If I remember rightly, he is not even premil himself.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

Interesting!

[SIZE="1"]-----Added 8/24/2009 at 04:49:42 EST-----[

Would you please give specific names?

__________________
Dewey D
Reformed Heritage Church (Independent at the moment)
San Fransicko, CA

William Twisse?

Really? Granted I've never been much of a Boice guy (never read anything, only heard him on the radio a few times), but this is very interesting. I had no idea.

__________________
Jon Peters
Member, Reformation Fellowship (OPC) (Roseville, CA)
Folsom, CA

I would suggest that (at the very least) caution must be used in this approach, i.e. finding members of the Assembly who held positions and affirming therefore the confessional acceptability thereof. For instance, it should be observed that Twisse (who died before the assembly finished its task) denied the imputation of the active obedience to the believer (though it should be noted that it is unclear how he would have felt about the Confession's wording of "perfect obedience"). We can use the divine's personal writings to help us understand the confessional language, but we can't assume that just because someone signed the document, their writings therefore are in complete harmony with the the Confession.

Therefore, while I offer no suggestion as to the relationship between Historic Premillenialism and the WCF, we should not assume compatibility of any doctrine solely upon the basis of private writings of members.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I greatly appreicated his ministry in the word. Please consider his book "The Last and Future World" (Zondervan :1974) or his commentary on the Minor Prophets.

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 05:29:56 EST-----

And Yet, What shall we do with all of those Congregationalists at the Assembly who were Premillennial?

N.B. There is no record of any dissent that I could find on WLC 87-88. On occasion we know a divine believed the majority had just passed something he believed was untrue to the substance of it (i.e. not scriptural); e.g. one divine on one or two votes on Liberty of Conscience did this. Paul's point is an important one (Twisse was dead by the time the LC was drafted I think).

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

I think also it is fair to say the Divines had a strong sense of the God given collective wisdom of the assembly- though their individual views might have at times varied, they really understood God was guiding through their purposed assembly. What's amazing (providential) is how much in consonance their views were, and how those were revealed in the Assembly's work.

Therefore, one should conclude that James M. Boice and Francis Schaeffer and all the Congreagationalists at the Assembly, and the majority of the members of the PCA who believe that Millennialism is consistent with the WFC are in Error on this subject?

Remember, amillennialism, for example does believe in a millennium- a realized one.

Of Course, that is not what we are talking about, is it?

Robert Dabney, in the "Memorial Volume," p. 101:

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

No, except that many are confused on this point and their only understanding in following is that "a" mill doesn't believe in a millennium, which is not correct. Another term for amillennialism is realized millennium.

What you are really talking about, perhaps, is not whether there is a millennium but whether there is one general resurrection of the both the just and the unjust, as part of the same event. That's not exactly the same thing. (It took time to understand that was what was at issue)

Amen! How we love our dear brother Dabney in the South! My only question is how do our Presbyterian Brothers in Christ explain the historical reality that:

1. The Congregationalists at the Assembly were Premil (as were a
number of our beloved Puritans) and yet they were not seen as at
variance with the Confession.

2. The Majority of our dear brothers within the PCA do not see Premil as
at variance with the WCF.

3. Notable Servants of Christ within the PCA have held to Premil,
and yet have not been considered at variance with the WCF.

My question is simple. How do folks who hold to Premil and the WCF present their case?

Three points worth considering. (1.) Chiliasm in the 17th century was not identical to premillennialism today. A "personal" coming of Christ to introduce the golden age might be spoken about in terms of "the breath of His mouth," that is, the preaching of the Word. So a chiliast might turn out to be postmillennialist in today's language. (2.) Chiliasm tended to be highly speculative; to the point that an interpreter might not even consider what ramifications a specific conclusion might have for his doctrinal system. We should not be quick to suppose consistency. (3.) There was no subscription to the Confession and Catechisms. Hence there is no reason why a divine could not be at variance with the Confession. He would only recognise it as the faith of the Church of England, not necessarily the confession of his faith.

Therefore, dear esteemed brother, as to...

1.) You are asserting that the alleged assumptions of history regarding the Premillennnailsim of the Congregationalists at the Assembly is in fact a misunderstanding of their views, and that they were, in point of fact, Postmillennial?

2.) That the Premillennialism of the 16th Century tended toward what we might describe as "highly speculative", and therefore should be viewed as suspect?

3.) That the non-subscriptional nature of Assembly provided that one who held to Premil views was in fact simply inconsistent with the "faith of the church of England" at that point?

Dabney's quote appears to be a polite way of romanticizing the allowance of speculative sects to preserve unity.

Who could miss the invitation to avert being labeled a member of such a persistent sect that holds romantic and exciting speculations (and if one is unsure of what he meant, why risk finding out). One can simply follow the example of forgoing the topic.

My.. (all together now) wasn't it a beautiful sunrise this morning!

In seriousness, it is perhaps one of the most avoided topics in the PCA. I could count on one hand the number of times I have heard the topic preached (in the PCA) in the last twenty years. I have found other denominations that appear much more comfortable with preaching about it.

__________________
Bryan
Deacon, PCA
Tampa, FL

That may be an extension of what I am saying, and Charles Briggs' "Whither" certainly makes this claim with some historical plausibility.

Effectively what I am saying is that it is anachronistic to impose the modern classifications of pre and post on the chiliasm of the 17th century. The divines themselves were not functioning within these categories. They might resemble them in specific ways, but they never taught them as they have come to be known.

No, simply that their speculations were still in the process of review, whereas we now stand on the other side of that process; so consistency should not be insisted upon as we might require it today.

First, I doubt there was a strict premil view. Secondly, as there was no personal subscription, individual views and the question of fidelity would not have come under scrutiny the way they are likely to do in a subscription setting.

They would at least be required, IMO, to explain how their personal views fit with the language of the Westminster Standards without the necessity of taking an exception.

Dear brother... While I completely understand the inherent predicament it is that one might find premillennalists present and even moderating the Assembly, I find your attempts to explain away this commonly understood point of history less than compelling. And yet for the sake of charity, I will move on to the the main point of this thread.

It seems that among a good many Presbyterian brethren there is a common agreement that one may hold to Historic Premil and still be considered in harmony with the WCF.

Do you believe that is a correct assumption?

I have recommended reading the history as history rather than ideology. If one decides not to take my recommendation then that is his choice. I believe my historical assessment is easily demonstrable from the fact that Robert Baillie calls a number of divines chiliasts who did not teach what has has come to be known as premillennialism.

No; the quotation from Dabney shows what the Confession includes and excludes.