Here is some background on the Westminster Larger Catechism.

S. W. Carruthers writes:
The Larger Catechism follows the order of the Confession, with two exceptions. (1) The doctrine of the Church and its privileges appears earlier, being connected with the work of the Redeemer; (2) the relation of believers to Christ at and after death is placed in the first section, where the benefits of believers are specified, instead of at the end. The order in which the subjects are taken up in the Shorter Catechism is the same as that of the Larger, except that Faith and Repentance have their more logical position in the second division of the Shorter Catechism, which deals with the duty required of man, instead of being placed beside Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification as in the first division of the Larger Catechism, which deals with what man is to believe concerning God. But the connection between the three documents is still more close. The Larger Catechism is a longer document than the Confession; this is due to the requirements of an advanced Catechism, many of the subjects being more subdivided, and some secondary and more practical aspects of the doctrines being introduced, which were not in the Confession. Where identical matters are treated of in the three documents it is in almost identical language.
S Catechism

Chad Van Dixhoorn writes:

At times the Larger Catechism asks unique questions. Sometimes these extra questions may not strike us as especially important, such as question sixteen, which asks about the creation of angels, or question nineteen, which inquires about God’s providence toward angels. But other times the contributions are more obviously significant. The Larger Catechism, for example, presents rules to interpret and apply the law of God, and spells out the differences between justification and sanctification. The Larger Catechism also goes into more detail about our triune God than does the Shorter Catechism, and has more to say about Jesus Christ. The Larger Catechism has multiple questions on the mediatorial role of Christ, and Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. Indeed, the Larger Catechism makes numerous contributions not covered by the Shorter Catechism, all supporting the idea that the Larger Catechism was written to give us the profound and important matters of the Word of God.

But perhaps the largest remaining contribution of the Larger Catechism is one noted by Robert Godfrey. Godfrey points out that the Larger Catechism frequently speaks of the church, where the Shorter Catechism is concerned with the individual.27 This is extremely important. The Larger Catechism makes frequent mention of ministers of the gospel and carries on extensive discussions about the outward and ordinary means of grace, where the Shorter Catechism says almost nothing on the same matters. The Larger Catechism broadens its lens in order to focus on the corporate, public, gathered people of God. Professor Godfrey suggests that “the decision to eliminate a doctrine of the church from the Shorter Catechism may have made sense in a context where it was assumed that catechumens would have moved on to the fuller instruction of the Larger Catechism”but he warns that “where the Larger Catechism no longer functions in that way . . . a very serious omission exists;” there could be a lack of teaching about the church, in the church.28

Godfrey has hit the proverbial nail on the head. His observation may explain why so many people appreciate the Shorter Catechism and not the Larger Catechism:The Shorter Catechism, like much of North American evangelicalism, focuses on the individual; the Larger Catechism, on the other hand, is explicitly corporate and churchly. I think it is fair to add that in places the Larger Catechism appears more concerned with the church and the ordinary means of grace (such as preaching, the sacraments, and church discipline) than even the Confession.

Of course, if Robert Baillie’s earlier statement is correct, this should not be the case. Baillie thought that the Catechisms would not say anything that the Confession did not. But it appears that the committee working on the Catechism did not always feel bound to follow the wording or content of the Confession. Professor John Murray suggested, for example, that the Larger Catechism’s teaching on the Covenant of Grace surpasses that of chapter seven, section three of the Confession, and that question twenty-two has a better discussion of the imputation of Adam’s sin than the Confession of Faith, chapter six, section three.29

27. Godfrey, “The Westminster Larger Catechism,” 134-38.
28. Godfrey, “The Westminster Larger Catechism,” 135; see also 135-38. Godfrey also discusses T. F. Torrance’s allegations of the Larger Catechism’s legalism (132-34, 142), and its lack of focus on the Holy Spirit (140, 142). Godfrey points out that the Larger Catechism speaks of the law about as much as Calvin’s Catechism, and less than the Shorter Catechism. He further notes that the Holy Spirit is mentioned in eighteen percent of the Larger Catechism’s questions — approximately double that found in Calvin’s Catechism or the Shorter Catechism (142).
29. John Murray, “The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, 4: Studies in Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 258-63.
"The Making of the Westminster Larger Catechism" by Chad B. Van Dixhoorn

__________________
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

Now that is Funny! And so True!

Great question.

It does appear the Westminster Larger Catechism assumes some sort of amillennial or postmillenial view (cf questions 87-90). It's as if there is "no other game in town."

It also seems the best we can say of the Confession is there is an inference that the raising of all men, and the judgment are part of the same event.

Here is where I would say, in interpreting the Westminster Standards, which in the PCA, one has to do in order to "state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechismsin any of their statements and/or propositions." (BCO 21-4), that one would assume the Standards are internally consistent.

The burden of proof would be to say that the Westminster Confession is intending to allow a millennial time gap between His coming and final judgment. Since it is a clear inference this is not the case in the WLC, there would need to be a similar clear inference that there is intended to be at least the possibility of that in the Confession to create ambiguity.

The Divines were very careful in choosing their language to reflect their meaning- no more no less. Their motivation was not to create ambiguity for others to later sort out, but to confess a "reformed Christianity"- summarizing the doctrine of Scripture, reforming back toward the apostolic Christianity of the first century.

One gets the impression reading the Puritans, Calvin, and the Confessions that premillenialism, even classical premillenialism was not even considered a viable option by them. It looks like it was to some early church fathers, but not in the Reformation era.

All this to say, in the end, I still don't see how the timing of the Second Coming and judgment, even inserting a millennium time gap, by itself goes against the fundamentals of the system. All men are still raised, judged, and Christ comes again.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


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

Your four word post may well be the clearest statement to this point. Thank you!

Clearly your ideology is interpreting your history!

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

A primary source to challenge the "judgment of a number of careful scholars." Thomas Goodwin serves as a good example of the chiliasm of the Assembly divines. The qualifications he makes to his teaching demonstrates that he would consider the premillennial view of Christ's personal reign on earth to be an error.

Thomas Goodwin (Works 1:521):

Another primary source to correct the secondary literature on the nature of the chiliasm which was espoused by Assembly divines. Jeremiah Burroughs, Jerusalem’s Glory, 60-63, also qualifies that the millennial presence of Christ is not His personal presence as it dwells in heaven, but the glory of His presence increased upon earth. "Jerusalem" is interpreted to mean "his Churches," and it is in the hearts of overcoming saints that this glory is revealed.

Yet another primary source, and surely at the mouth of three witnesses the matter must be established notwithstanding all the scholars speaking to the contrary. William Gouge, The progresse of divine Providence, 29, specifically dissociates his view of the millennium from that of the "later Chiliasts:"

So then, what kind of kingdom did "chiliasm" envision?

Any idea when or by what theologian(s) there was a break between "chiliasm" and classical premillennialism over the physical presence on earth of our Lord before the millennium?

In the words of the Larger Catechism, "the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: ... the ordinances of Christ ... 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."

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Sounds a lot like amillenialism to me!

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


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

Once again, I am in awe at the profundity and clarity of the Westminster Divines. Truly (providentially) amazing!

I find it especially interesting the magistrate is to "countenance and maintain" the church. That stayed in the Catechism even on this side of the Atlantic. That would certainly fit postmillennial views, and with amillennialism.

So, how was "chiliasm" a different view than that of classical premillenialism- that's the question?

By answering from the Catechsim, it is implied it is the same view of the kingdom and millennium as amill and premill. But the question remains here:

1) How is "chiliasm" as a view differentiated from historical premillennialism? When? By whom?

2) Is the key difference "chiliasm" does not envision a physical (but a spiritual) presense of Christ on earth until His return, whereas premillennialism does envision physical presence for the above to happen?

Scott, yes, the whole difference lies in the premil belief that Christ must personally appear to usher in the millennium. Biblically orthodox Christianity maintains that Christ is exalted to the right hand of God and sits there until all His enemies are made His footstool. From glory He destroys the working of Satan with the spirit of His mouth and the brightness of His coming. The emphasis is on the spiritual presence of Christ. At the personal appearing of Christ death will be destroyed by the resurrection of the dead and issue in the general and final judgement.

Which is not non-millennialism, but realised millennialism.

Dear Brother, I appreciate your two previous witnesses above, and I may revisit them later, but as to this third witness, may I suggest the following:

1. I have not asserted that William Gouge could be interpreted as a Premillennialist.

2. Your quote may actually prove the case that there were chiliasts who "imagine that Christ shall personally come down...and reign here a thousand years with his saints". The work in question I believe is dated to be 1645. This would put Gouge's identification of these "later chiliasts" to be contemporaneous with the meetings of the Assembly (1643-1649). Here we see a form of "chiliasm" which sounds similiar to premillennialism, at least to me.

I have greatly benefited from your input on this subject and look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

Excellent discussion, very helpful.

1) How was "chiliasm" different from amill and premill at all?

2) My understanding is premillenialism (with a physical return of Christ to earth before the millennium) was a popular view among the early church fathers (e.g. first century, c.f. Polycarp). That it was likely the majority view of the (very) early church and gave way to realized millennium thereafter and remained so for most of church history. Is this not correct?

Rev Winzer, is there such a thing as 'Historical Premillenialism' at all?

The point here is that Gouge maintains the recalling of the Jews, but dissociates his view from "later chilasts," or premillennialists. Taken in conjunction with the testimony of Goodwin and Burroughs -- the prime suspects of premillennialism amongst Assembly divines -- it proves that chiliasm is not ipso facto premillennialism. It must be positively established that an individual held to a "personal" reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years before that individual can be counted amongst the "later chiliasts." I would suggest that the secondary literature has not been careful to establish this point.

Yes, amongst extremists.

???

"extremists"???

I beleive those who hold to historic premillennialism will argue that the early church was made up of those with eschatological views that were largely undefined and unspecific but generally similar to what we now call "premillennialism" and "amillennialism." You are quite right that there is a measure of anachronism in making early eschatological views fit in the straightjackets of later doctrinal precision. But, neither view has been held to be particularly "extreme" that I know of in church history. There have, however, been plenty of extremists who have advocated for each of the three major eschatological positions.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

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

Yes, this is an anachronism. Why would you defend an historical conclusion which you agree depends upon an historical fallacy?

Therefore, in terms of the modern era, should one view such notable Presbyterian ministers as Francis A. Schaeffer, James M. Boice, Allan MacRae, and J. Oliver Buswell as "extremists?"

-----Added 9/2/2009 at 10:18:02 EST-----

If I may recommend a book on the subject of the early church:

"The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church" By Martin Erdmann (ISBN: 1-59752-446-8).

It depends if it led them to deny any element of the catholic faith?

Scott said (my emphasis):
I agree. I apply the same principle in reading the WCF on subjects such as limited atonement, which I believe is expressed in the WCF. So, I have to concede that the intent of the WCF is to express a non-premill understanding, though only in this one statement. The WCF uses the same phraseology as the WLC; it is just that the WCF is terse.

It seems to me that whatever premillennialists there were at the Assembly, they went along with their postmill brethren in letting them define the eschatological statements.

-----Added 9/4/2009 at 02:51:41 EST-----

I believe the correct title is "historic premillennialism", meaning that the version of premillennialism is the historic version, before dispensationalism and its version. "Historical" would be to say it is a premillennialism that has to do with history--which makes no sense. Likewise, we speak of "historic Christianity", not "historical Christianity". Hence, various non-dispensational premill views are categorized under "historic premillennialism". I believe chiliasm (of one sort or another) is also included here.

I think it also helps to keep the basics in mind:
1. It has to do with the time of Christ's return. One is either pre- or post-mill. You either place the "millennium" before or after Christ's return. There is no alternative.

2. It then also has to do with the nature of the "millennium" kingdom. One either regards the "millennium" literally or not (figuratively, spiritually). Further, one either regards the kingdom as literally on earth, with Christ reigning personally on earth, or not (reigning from heaven and/or in the hearts of his people).

The Westminster Standards evidently exclude a literal earthly reign after Christ returns, which is the historic premill view. In theory, though, the following combinations could be allowable:
(a) premill return followed by heavenly/spiritual reign, for literally 1000 years or a figurative "millennium";
(b) postmill return preceded by heavenly/spiritual reign, for literally 1000 years or a figurative "millennium".
So, Westminster seems to allow today's amill and postmill views, as well as a theoretical premill, which I do not know if anyone has held.

__________________
S.P. Smith
Reformed Baptist
Washington

Very helpful in understanding this, thank you.

A few comments below.

A book I would like to recommend on the issue of the millennial views of 17th Century English Puritans:

"The Puritan Millennium: Literature and Theology, 1550-1682" By Crawford Gribben (ISBN 978-1-60608-018-4).

He notes, among other things,...

1. Puritanism was an intensely eschatological movement.

2. All three methods of interpretation on the millennial issue were present within the movement (a-, post-, pre-).

3. Approaching this historical question is difficult not only because of the danger of reading history as ideology, but also because of the tendency of coming to it with a "confessional bias."

And yet, it is likely that he has been traditionally identified as premil partly because of his sermon on Rev. 19:6 entitled "A Glimpse of Zion's Glory" (Works of Thomas Goodwin, Vol. 12, 60-80) where he refers to Christ reigning "personally." A quote from the sermon:

"But though it be dark for a while, certainly he shall reign, and the voice
will be glorious and distinct one day, saying, Halleluiah, the Lord God
omnipotent reigneth. He shall reign, first, personally; secondly, in his saints.
First, Personally. We will not fully determine of the manner of his per
sonal reigning ; but thus far we may see, there is a voice of great waters,
though not distinct, but a probability in his person God and man. He shall
reign upon the earth, here in this world, before that great and solemn day.
There are divers scriptures that have somewhat of this in them. We cannot
give the distinct \oice of those scriptures ; but many of God s saints, they
do hear something, and when a thing grows nearer and nearer, God will
reveal it more distinct : Zech. xii. 10, They shall look upon him whom
they have pierced, and shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only
son. It is usually understood either of a spiritual looking by the eye of
faith, or beholding Christ at the da}7 of judgment. But why should we take
it for a spiritual looking, and looking at the day of judgment ? That place
doth not hold out ; that is not the thing intended. They shall mourn every
one apart. This is not like the setting forth of the mourning at the day of
judgment. And take but this one rule, that all texts are to be understood
literally, except they make against some other scriptures, or except the very
coherence and dependence of the Scripture shews it otherwise, or it makes
against the analogy of faith. Now there is nothing against this, but it may
be so. A second scripture that seems to hold out somewhat is that in Mat.
xxvi. 29, I will not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine until that day
when I drink it new with you in my Father s kingdom. It is true this is
likewise interpreted in a mystical sense, but there is no reason why we may
not take it literally ; not in the kingdom of his Father in heaven, but in that
kingdom that he shall come in here to drink the fruit of the vine, to have
communion with his saints in this world, 2 Thes. ii. 8. Antichrist shall be
destroyed by the brightness of Christ s coming, the brightness of his personal
coming: and that place, Rev. xx., where it is said, The saints shall reign
with him a thousand years, which cannot be meant reigning with him in
heaven. It is made as a proper peculiar benefit unto such as had refused
antichrist s government, especially to the Christian church. It is likely
divers of the prophets and patriarchs may come in, but especially it belongs
to the Christian church. Now the reigning with Christ a thousand years is
not meant reigning with him in heaven, for after these thousand years there
shall be many enemies raised against the church. Gog and Magog shall
gather themselves together. If it were meant of heaven, that could not be ;
and therefore it must be meant of Jesus Christ coming and reigning here
gloriously for a thousand years. And although this may seem to be strange,
yet heretofore it hath not been accounted so ; it hath been a truth received
in the primitive times. Justin Martyr, that lived presently after John, he
spake of this as a thing that all Christians acknowledged; and likewise
Lactantius hath such expressions in divers places of his seventh book, that
there are glorious times coming, wherein shall be plenty and fruitfulness in
the church ; yet first Rome must be burnt, and Babylon first down, and
brings the sybils, the heathen oracles, for it ; and after a little time there
shall be stirring up of enemies against them. Thus far they go. If they
did not believe that Christ himself should come personally to reign, yet he
shall with his saints reign in a glorious manner, and the church shall be so
raised up in the world outwardly as to be above all the men of the world in
outward glory." (pp. 70-71).

Should one understand these words to reflect a Premil understanding of Rev. 19-20? Have I misread him at this point?

What is of particular interest is that Goodwin references Justin Martyr and Lactanius, who are normally considered clearly to be Pre mil. He seems to be linking his Premil interpretation with prime examples of Premil advocates in the early church.

Some have questioned the genuineness of this sermon partly because of the apparent conflict with his later statements in the quote referred to above by Rev. Winzer and because only one extant copy include his initials "T.G." (See, "The Puritan Hope" by Iain H Murray, p. 272). Is it possible that Goodwin's views changed over time?

I'd be curious if anyone has any thoughts on this issue. Thanks.

Folks; let's let the thread get back on topic next week.

Goodwin's exposition of Revelation was composed between 1634 and 1639, but I wasn't able to find any information on when the sermon "A Glimpse of Zion's Glory" was written.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

1641 apparently.
A glimpse of Syons glory, or, The churches beautie specified : briefly layd open in a sermon, at a generall fast day in Holland [WorldCat.org]

The Glimpse was published in 1641 and the sermons on Ephesians were preached in the 1640s, so there is no "latter day" change of mind.

The Glimpse has been attributed to various authors. It is usual in literary criticism to argue from internal evidence when the authorship of a work is not established by external evidence. If the Glimpse proved to contradict known sentiments as expressed in the received corpus of Goodwin's writings, this could only serve to cast doubt on his authorship of the Glimpse.

But taking the work at face value, it is possible to reconcile the appearance of contradiction by simply noting what is said to be "personal" and how the author qualifies it.

First, the author states, "We will not fully determine of the manner of his personal reigning." He does not say it is a personal return, but a personal reign. He nowhere states that this "personal" reign is physical, and he consciously refuses to enter into the discussion as to the manner how Christ personally reigns on earth.

Secondly, he qualifies in what sense Christ reigns personally on earth, when he says, "it must be meant of Jesus Christ coming and reigning here gloriously for a thousand years." This accords with the view stated by Goodwin in the Ephesians sermons, which spoke of a part of heaven coming down to earth.

Thirdly, when he presents the views of the fathers, he clearly states a distinction between coming personally to reign and reigning in a glorious manner: "If they did not believe that Christ himself should come personally to reign, yet he shall with his saints reign in a glorious manner, and the church shall be so raised up in the world outwardly as to be above all the men of the world in outward glory." This harmonises with his view of the fathers as presented in the Ephesians sermons: "Christ himself shall come down—that is the old error of some — to reign at Jerusalem; which error indeed the fathers spake against."

So while the Glimpse uses the language of a personal reign, it does not speak of a personal, physical advent of Christ.

Anthony Dallison, "the Latter Day Glory in the Thought of Thomas Goodwin," puts forward this interpretation: "Goodwin expected the millennium to be inaugurated without Christ's personal return to earth, but that an undefined point during the millennium, probably towards its close, Christ himself would return to judge the world during the 'long day' of judgment, at which point it could truly be said that Christ and his saints were both on earth together."

What's difficult to follow here is that "chiliasm" is defined as Christ physically returning to rule and reign on earth. It doesn't appear to be merely a "glorious" reign of a realized millennium that would fit right in with amillennialism and postmillennialism.

How are we differentiating "chiliasm" from classical premillennialism?

Are we saying that neither advocated a physical reign of Christ before the judgment?

You get what you pay for.

(There's a joke here in the States- What does Webster know, he has been dead 150 years?)

I think this would be closer to the mark.

Thank you, Hamp, for the extended quote from Thomas Goodwin.

I must confess that, by my reading, the quote from Goodwin's "A Glimpse of Zion's Glory" is clearly expressing some version of historic premillennialism.

1. He says he is not fully expounding the manner of the reign. This does not mean is saying nothing about it. He certainly does make some points clear, e.g., that it is on earth and not in heaven.

2. By saying the reign is glorious, he is not making a contrast with a personal or earthly reign. It is a qualification, but not so as to reverse what he just said--a personal reign on earth with the saints.

3. In commenting on early fathers, Goodwin is in fact addressing the way in which those early writers might have deviated from the position he is asserting. So, he says even if they did not go this far, to assert a personal reign, yet at least they still held to some sort of actual reign with his saints, etc. So, in fact, the construction of his sentence shows that such a view among the fathers is a deviation from the view he is putting forth. In short, again, he is saying his own view is that Christ will come here to reign personally.

4. The real issue is whether there is an earthly reign of Christ (personally)--not the return/second advent. I am a bit confused by the remark that Goodwin was silent here on a personal, physical return of Christ. Is this not a fundamental tenet of the faith? Surely he believed this, yes? The debate is not over a personal, bodily return of Christ, is it?

5. Goodwin explicitly says:
a) Christ will reign "on earth, here in this world"--before the great/solemn day (judgment);
b) the saints' millennial reign is not in heaven;
c) Christ comes and reigns here (vs. in heaven) gloriously for a thousand years;
d) they shall literally look upon him whom they have pierced, not merely spiritually;
e) Christ will literally drink the fruit of the vine in the kingdom;
f) we should take such passages literally, not as referring to a heavenly kingdom of the Father;
g) the Antichrist (presumed as being on earth) will be destroyed when Christ comes;
h) the saints will reign with Christ, and this implies it must be on earth, not in heaven;
i) the rising up of Gog and Magog after the millennium must be on earth, not in heaven;
j) this may seem strange (to his contemporaries), but it has at least some partial precedent in the chiliasm of the early church.


So, I would suggest that either we accept that the quoted statements are not fully consistent (perhaps a change in thinking), or maybe the former quotation needs to be looked at more closely. I personally think the latter is worth considering. After all in the place cited (Works :521), the point he calls "the old error" is that Christ himself shall come down to reign at Jerusalem. That is a more specific assertion than merely an earthly reign of any sort. Yet, "part of heaven" shall indeed come down "under him" and "rule this world". So, Christ himself will not reign from a point on earth, yet his delegates will do so, while he is in heaven. Is he referring to the millennium here?

Yes, it is a fundamental tenet of the faith. Premillennialism teaches that Christ physically and visibly returns to inaugurate the millennium. Goodwin taught that He returns to be with His saints after the millennium. Hence there is no grounds in Goodwin's writings for claiming that he was premillennialist.

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

Anyone know?