Originally Posted by Baptist-1689er

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?

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

My

In this century, premillennialism within Presbyterian bodies seems to be largely an American issue. I suspect that early 20th century alliances between American Presbyterian and like-minded dispensationalists (sometimes one and the same) against the forces of modernism are part of the reason for active premillennialism within some denominations (see Machen's Warrior Children).

The PCA is an amalgam of several traditions, including the RPCES which was highly sympathetic to premillennialism, having roots in the Bible Presbyterian split of 1938. The BPC was sympathetic not just to historic premillennialism but also to dispensationalism. (Anecdotally speaking, I recall seeing a fair share of Scofield Bibles when I joined an RPCES congregation back in the mid-70s.)

Originally Posted by bookslover

So, I think the basic point stands - that folks do not have to take an exception to the Westminster Standards if they are historic premil because the Standards do not take a clear, positive stance on the millennial issue, one way or another (a wise decision on the divines' part, I might add).

One of the wisest things the OPC did at its founding (1936) was to take Machen's advice that "we need to trust each other" on eschatalogical issues. This is why all three of the basic main views have been acceptable in the OPC from its beginning.

In the RCUS, on the other hand, you cannot be a minister if you are historic premil (or postmil, or so I'm told). You may only be amil in the RCUS.

If the RCUS is going to hold a definite position that historic premil is unbiblical, they're going to have to prove that from Scripture. I think they're a little too confident about what Scriptures teach eschatalogically - especially in light of the fact that, since the closing of the canon, the church has teased these three basic positions from the same biblical material.

Originally Posted by Scott1

I don't think we can overemphasize that the Westminster Standards aim to bind men's consciences, and form as a basis of unity and accountability, only those doctrines clear and convincing from Scripture, taking the whole of Scripture in the context of the whole of Scripture.

There is liberty beyond that, on specific doctrines of millennialism not because there is not a "right" position, because there is, and God knows it. But because it has not been evident enough to warrant the binding the consciences of His creatures, even as God has guided His Church.

For what's its worth, after having studied these millennial views for quite some time, and having been taught explicitly and by assumption modern dispensational premillennialism in the past, I can only indentify with this account of Dr. Sproul being asked about this:

A student at one of his conferences said he had read Dr. Sproul's book, The End Times according to Jesus, and could not tell which millennial view the author held. The student asked, which is it- classical premill, premill, amill, or modern dispensational premill?

Dr. Sproul is reported to have laughed and said, "That's because there are strengths and weaknesses with each one. Only one thing I am certain of- it's not the last one."

In this generation, as in others, when sin would affect men to prevaricate laws, standards and beliefs, the Divines sought not an individualist interpretation, by a summary of self evident truth that would bind unity, and further the peace and purity of God's people, covenanted together to serve Him in this world.

That's part of the "genius" of the Westminster Standards, and why we owe our forefathers in the faith such a debt of gratitude.

Originally Posted by Baptist-1689er

Others see Historic Premil as consistent, pointing to the fact that the Confession is silent on the issue of the millennium.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

FYI. The Bible Presbyterians changed their standards to be explicitly premil in 1938. The places in the Westminster standards have been adduced above.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Sometimes Q. 191 of the WLC is mentioned as evidence of postmil tendencies:-

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances,purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

But I think that if the commissioners had wanted to make an issue of the millennial issue they'd have devoted a chapter and/or question to it.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Pastor Linehan,

Reverend Winzer is probably one of the most studied men on the Confession and the historical documents associated with it. I would also like to inform you that amillenialism is a rather new term. It would have been called Postmil prior to the the recent terminology as it is used today. There were different strains of thought concerning it. I know many Post mils who do not hold to a literal 1000 year reign of Christ and I know some who do. I do know that a few I have spoken with do believe that the millenium did start with the binding of Satan by Christ at his first advent. There are differing opinions. I would recommend you get a book by Cornelius P. Venema

Dr. Venema discusses the history behind the doctrinal understandings that most books do not discuss. Post Mil and A mil are really classified as the same until recently, even though they differ in modern day terms of the Kingdom and it's relationship here on earth.

The Promise of the Future

I do not see that Historic Premil would have been heavily advocated at the Assembly nor understood in the same sense as we view it today as Rev. Winzer has proceeded to inform you. Two of the most influential Congregationalists of the time were the Reverends Thomas Goodwin and John Owen. I imagine that their views would have been the predominant view in the congregational churches. I keep reading a few posts that seem to indicate that most if not all the congregationalists were Premil. I find that hard to believe. But would be rather intrigued to know if that is true or not.

I do know this. Between the 3 major confessions of the time one would definitely need to hold to a Covenant Theology that maintained an affirmation of the Covenants of Works and Grace that most dispensationalists and modern day New Covenant Theologians do not hold to. I do know that the Historical Premil's do hold that Isreal and the Church are not two distinct identities as some have tried to redefine through their eschatological view. They are both the Ecclesia of God. The Church is the true Isreal of God. Spurgeon who came a few centuries later admired the confessions and he was historical premil. I imagine that is the way some Presby's view the Westminster also. They admire it but don't necessarily hold to it.

Be Encouraged,
Randy

Originally Posted by Smith

Sorry, I missed the second page of the thread!

Allan A. MacRae was part of the founding of Westminster, and he was premill, but not dispensationalist. I would to whom you refer as dispensationalist there. That would be interesting to know.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Macrae is is often cited as a a dispensationalist in the literature, and Frame identified him as an editor of the New Scofield Reference Bible. His resignation letter to Westminster Seminary is very "dispensational friendly". Macrae was also a founder of the Bible PC which was well-known for its tolerance if not embrace of dispensationalism.

Originally Posted by Smith

Dear Pastor Linehan,
I would like to add some information that might be pertinent. There is another denomination of Presbyterians known as Bible Presbyterians. They have a seminary in Tacoma (WA), Western Reformed Seminary, which as a school takes a historical premill position. Bible Presbyterians as a denomination were historic/classic premill. In seminary I studied under Dr. Allan A. MacRae, who was one such outspoken historic premill--and Reformed--Presbyterian. These men certainly regarded and now regard their position as fully consistent with the WCF. I believe they would say the WCF does not address the question. (I tend to agree.)

Some 60 years ago a school split off from Westminster Seminary--Faith Theological Seminary. One issue in the division, I believe, was the millennial issue--FTS was historic premill and generally associated with the Bible Presbyterian church. The notion that historic premill might be in conflict with the WCF was not an issue.

I think it is important to distinguish the official declaration of the WCF as a church document from the personal views of the Westminster divines. They obviously could have inserted more specific statements on the subject. We should be careful not to read more into the text than it actually asserts. I would be curious to know exactly which statements in the WCF definitely rule out the historic premill view.

I will add that I am a Reformed Baptist who is historic premill. I personally have no doubt that my position is consistent with the LBCF. The Confession does not address the question. Yet, I acknowledge that the differences between premill and amill/postmill can involve broad contrasts in our future outlook and in our methods of Bible interpretation--affecting our exegesis and application of many passages. As a result, it can be difficult for premill'ers and amill'ers to work well together. It is a big enough issue that I have sometimes found it quite difficult to sit under amill teaching. But this is not a matter of Confessional subscription.

S.P. Smith

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The late apologist, Dr Francis Schaeffer split with them, and he was premil.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Reverend Winzer is probably one of the most studied men on the Confession and the historical documents associated with it.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

But why is that necessary if the WCF was already in harmony with the premil view?

The wording changes made by the BPC demonstrate that the original language was either, a) too broad for the BPC folks, or b) contrary to their definition of premillennialism. They ended up not creating any sort of superior Confession, but merely editorializing their sectarian views.

Originally Posted by py3ak

I secretly think of Mr. Winzer as the Australian delegate to the Westminster Assembly.

Originally Posted by Smith

In short:
(1) The fact that the BPs revised the Standards does not imply the Standards must be read as *contrary* to the premill position. They just wanted a distinctly premill document.

Originally Posted by Smith

(2) MacRae used the common WCF, even as the standard for his seminary, even though he and his school were premill. He could hardly think WCF and premill were contradictory.

Originally Posted by Smith

A few additional thoughts:
(a) The Westminster Standards are not "ecumenical". The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are examples of ecumenical creeds, according to common usage.

Originally Posted by Smith

(b) Is it appropriate to label the BPC or premill Reformed brethren as a "sect"?

Originally Posted by Smith

(c) I may be quite mistaken (please correct me), but it seems to me as if some would actually *prefer* to exclude premillennarians as confessionally unorthodox.

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Indeed. Rev. Winzer is the E.F. Hutton of the PB (it's an old television commercial reference that geezers like me will resonate with).

AMR

Originally Posted by Edward

rd;677716]I do believe a case can be made that a PreMil should state that exception to the appropriate court. In the PCA, it likely wouldn't present any bar to ordination. I'd be happy if we could just keep the Dispys out of office (who shouldn't be allowed an exception).

Originally Posted by bookslover

Why should a historic premil take an exception to the Standards, since the Standards don't take an explicit millennial position one way or another? As for dispensationalists (who are premil), they can be defeated on other theological grounds - namely, their dispensationalism.

Originally Posted by Baptist-1689er

Was this esteemed historian of the Presbyterian church guilty of reading history as ideology?

Originally Posted by Smith

Thank you for posting this "Changes" by the Bible Presbyterians. A little history is also found here: The Presbyterian Church divides and adjusts (1934-1967).

I think there are other possibilities to consider, such as the following line of reasoning. The WCF is not clear on the subject of the millennium.
I think the Westminster Standards are clear on what they address. They do not explicitly address millennial views.

It may arguably be regarded as ambiguous at that point.
I don't think the Westminster Standards are ambiguous. They are self consciously limited to things that were clear and convincing from Scripture and did not seek to bind men's conscienses with things not clear and convincing from Scripture. I don't think they ever were ambiguous, only careful not to state more than or less than what was clear by that standard from Scripture.
And perhaps that was deliberate, in order to allow unity among those with differing millennial views. Though the BPC may have thought their premill view was consistent with the Standards, they may have wanted to go further and make an unambiguous standard for their own denomination. After all, it does seem apparent that they wanted to maintain a distinctly premill denomination. The modified standard would then be useable as a constitutional instrument for ruling their church, e.g., explicitly requiring their officers to be premill. Therefore, given this possible line of thought, this means their actions do not necessarily imply that the BPC viewed the WCF as distinctly contrary to premillennialism.
It seems to me the denomination would not have seen fit to modify the Westminster Standards if they though a premillennial view was consistent with it.

It is no small thing to amend the Confession.

Moreover, their actions cannot entail that the Westminster Standards themselves (objectively, on their own terms) are clearly anti-premill. (The BPC men were not the authors of the Standards).

I understand what you are saying- they were not "anti" any millennial view. Rather, they implicitly assumed a premill or amill view in a couple doctrines. That's different, but it does get us to the same point- the premillennial view does not quite fit.

In the case of MacRae, he went on later to found a seminary that used the common WCF as its standard, without modification--even though the school was uniformly premill. (I speak of [old] Biblical Theological Seminary.) I also know he later was in the PCA (evidently went with the branch of BPs who merged with RPC and then PCA). I know from personal acquaintance that he loved and used the Westminster Standards as is.

In short:
(1) The fact that the BPs revised the Standards does not imply the Standards must be read as *contrary* to the premill position. They just wanted a distinctly premill document.

It seems it does... that's why they had to change the Confession, and bind their officers by the change.

(2) MacRae used the common WCF, even as the standard for his seminary, even though he and his school were premill. He could hardly think WCF and premill were contradictory.

A few additional thoughts:
(a) The Westminster Standards are not "ecumenical". The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are examples of ecumenical creeds, according to common usage.

Good distinction, good point.

(b) Is it appropriate to label the BPC or premill Reformed brethren as a "sect"? By that rule, it would be easy to call some other small Presbyterian denominations, which have additional distinctives, as "sects". And are Reformed Baptists, with their "revised" confession, also just a "sect", a bunch of discontented people "not satisfied" with the Confession? But rather should we not *want* to *embrace* premill Reformed believers as brethren?

I think we can overuse words like "cult," "heresy," and even "sect." We need to be very careful, ninth commandment in view, to reserve those terms for their real substance.

I cannot imagine calling the BPC denomination a "sect," nor would I even term classical premillenialism "serious error." (Modern dispensational premillenialism maybe, but not classical).

I can't speak for others, but perhaps "sect" was being used in a sense of sectioning off a denomination, not in its primary sense a generally orthodox belief system but with some peculiar doctrines, perhaps amounting to serious error.

(c) I may be quite mistaken (please correct me), but it seems to me as if some would actually *prefer* to exclude premillennarians as confessionally unorthodox. As a premill Reformed believer, I have sometimes sensed this when looking for a church to join. Perhaps forming separate churches based on eschatology is unavoidable--the perspectives are just too far apart in the end. I would have thought it would be preferrable to minimize division where the Standards are not definite and clear. I would humbly suggest to such minded brethren, though, that if you want to exclude premill Reformed brethren as out of step with your doctrinal standard, then I think you should write that explicitly into the Confession or bylaw. Yet, it would surely be better if we could find ways to work together.

S.P. Smith
Reformed Baptist
Washington

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It is a common practice of historians to assume other historians are correct and not check primary sources for themselves. As noted, chiliast or millennarian are the terms used in the 17th century. These simply do not equate to what we today would call premillennialism, even if secondary sources state otherwise.

Originally Posted by Baptist-1689er

Dear Brother, your statement is, it seems to me, consistent with my previous claim that it is a "commonly understood" point of historical theology that one could find views at the Assembly held by several people who have been interpreted as holding to a position which we would presently refer to as premillennial. Are you suggesting that such people, for example, as William Twisse, Thomas Goodwin, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Bridge, Herbert Palmer, or Stephen Marshall could not be called, in any sense of the term, Premillennial? I am just interested in your thoughts at this point. Thanks for your input on this issue.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Having read the writings of the church fathers, having read various systematics on the matter (Reformed and otherwise), and having read works by recognized scholars attempting to explain millennial views of the fathers, reformers, puritans, et al, I am having a very hard time taking Matthew's views with any seriousness.

Of course there will always be slight variations in eschatalogical understanding and articulation, even from within the same camp and from within the same period, but to say that premil views today differ significantly from 17th century (or other period) views only holds true if you are comparing the dispensational view with older views. I have understood this thread to have been a discussion of classical premillennial views. If Matthew is trying to say that historic premils today differ in substance from historic premils of an earlier era then that is just a flawed assertion.