Based on the quote above from "A Glimpse," it would seem the burden of proof would be on those who would attempt to interpret his words in a figurative manner.

His statement in the Ephesians sermons specifically refutes a physical return of Christ to inaugurate the millennium. The statement in the Glimpse nowhere avows a physical return of Christ prior to the millennium. In the absence of all other evidence the only proper conclusion to draw is that Goodwin did not teach that Christ visibly returns before the millennium, or what is today called premillennialism. I don't know too many historians who would pride themselves on following secondary sources over the clear testimony of primary sources.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

If course, if each premise of your statement were valid, your conclusion would be true. Yet the language from "A Glimpse" which speaks of our Lord's "personal" "coming" "to earth" to reign for a "thousand years" would led some folks to conclude that some form of Premillennialism is assumed.

Sure, if that is what premillennialism taught, but it doesn't; it teaches the visible, physical return of Christ before the millennium, which Goodwin repudiates.

The Glimpse explains what is meant by the glorious presence of Christ in thirteen points. None of them speak of a physical presence of Christ. All of them are expected by those who are today called postmillennialists or optimistic amillennialists.

Ok. Rev. Winzer, are you aware of anyone else who has read "A Glimpse" and has interpreted Goodwin's words to be in conflict with the Ephesian sermon and perhaps consistent with Premillennialism, or is this your first encounter with this understanding of the of the sermon?

I think it would benefit many to know that the terminology of millennialism is mostly a recent acquisition of terms that have been more defined in the past 300 years or so. So to make a postmil and amil distinction flat out is even difficult before the term amil was used (or even now the term used by them... realized or gospel age millennialism). I believe it is the same for Chiliasm and what others know to be Premillennialism. The terminiology has been tightened up quite a bit in just the past few hundred years and now we are reading back into the earlier writers our presuppositions of what is being said. When they say something concerning a 1000 year reign on earth we automatically assume a premil of Christ's physical presence here in Jerusalem when that most likely might not be the case.

That is just like the football argument. When the soccer world speaks of football they mean soccer. But when a Yank hears football he thinks of Notre Dame and the fighting Irish.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

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

I appreciate your helpful caution at this point. The question I am working on is the appearance of contradiction between the two documents.

Iain Murray writes of this in his book "The Puritan Hope" (p. 272):
"There is a positiveness in 'A Glimpse' which does not harmonize with the tone of Goodwin's Ephesian sermon, and further, in the former the personal descent and reign of Christ is asserted (Works, 12,71), while in the latter it is denied."

This quote is, of course, in the context of Murray discussing whether Goodwin was a "premillennalist." Murray had asserted that Goodwin was Premillennial earlier in the book (pp. 52-53).

Obviously many premils have advocated an historical basis for their views and there is no doubt that their references to miscellaneous statements has won the general support of historians. Contextual reading of the primary sources, however, paints a different picture.

Dear PuritanCovenanter, I am curious at this point. Would you consider that prior to John Nelson Darby, anyone in the history of the church could be considered, by any standard of definition one might choose to impose, a premillennnalist? Do you believe in the existence of any form of premillennialism prior to John Nelson Darby? Is premillennialism the creation of John Nelson Darby and the 19th century?

Thank you, dear friend in Christ, I believe I have identified your answer. I appreciate your gracious tone in this matter.

I am not sure. I think you would have to clearly establish the fact from primary sources that someone believed that Christ would show up physically present to rule the earth on a physical throne in the writings of those who have believed in a literal period of time before the last resurrection. I know of those who claimed such from Justin Martyr that have been supposedy refuted in some of the things I have read. I think I read some of that in Cox's writings. Maybe 'Amillennialism Today' or his book on Final things. It also might have been in Hoekema's 'The Bible and the Future'.

So I decided to go back and read the sections of Justin Martyr's works that are allegedly premillennial, and I must admit I could not find the basic premil view, i.e., that Christ returns to earth and dwells in Jerusalem for 1000 years with the saints.

If anyone has a quote from Justin with Christ on the earth during the 1000 years, please share it.

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

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

Thank you.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 04:25:56 EST-----

Therefore, we have established, among some, at least, that the Premil position was possibly, yet not certainly, created by John Nelson Darbey. Thank you.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 04:54:03 EST-----

Therefore, if I may, Premillennialism never existed until John Nelson Darbey created it in the 19th Century. Is that correct?

To be clear here,

Are we saying that a physical rule of Christ on earth before a 1,000 year period is a product of modern dispensational premillennialism?

And by that, are we saying none of the early Church fathers believed in a physical rule of our Lord in like manner?

Are we also then left with a lone definition of "chiliasm" as being belief in a millennium of spiritual reign by Christ (not physical) before His return?

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


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

Yep, I think that is where we may be headed.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 05:57:55 EST-----

Unless, of course, some of our friends here would like to correct this assumption.

It would be surprising if anyone were asserting that, given what has already been quoted in the thread:

Thomas Goodwin (Works 1:521):

The emphasized portion shows belief in a physical, local reign of Christ is not new: it is considered an old error.

__________________
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

Would anyone ever argue that it was a belief of the Church?

Ok. Then have we established here that John Nelson Darbey created premillennialism, and that it was absent at any other time in the life of the church before him?

Darby is associated with the rise and spread of dispensationalism.

As noted, premillennialism has historical representation amongst extremists.

Well, while you may assert that premillennialism has some "historical representation" in the history of the church, and I think history is on your side at this point, I am not sure most folks here are as certain as you may be. I am still curious what an "extremist" is, according to you.

In the early church, Judaistic; in the middle ages, mystic; from the Reformation to the present, Anabaptistic.

Well given the very broad terms (anyone, ever) it's hard to give a definitive negative. I don't think premillenialism was enshrined in any documents with constitutional authority until relatively recently, but I haven't read all constitutional documents.

Tom, I think the references you shared from Dialogue 80-81 have the elements one would expect from a premil position. It is true that Justin doesn't explicitly mention the Second Advent, but I think it is assumed. He does reference it earlier (Dialogue 32 & 51) and later (110 & 113). I find the following elements:

1. a resurrection from the dead, then
2. a 1000 years in Jerusalem, then
3. the general resurrection and judgment.

For the sake of argument, because he doesn't reference the Second Coming in connection with the general resurrection and judgment, should we then conclude that he didn't believe in Christ's Second Coming then? I don't think we would want to interpret his omission that way either. I think it is more reasonable to interpret his words as describing what will occur after the Second Coming, which would appear to be Premillennial in his understanding. These are just my thoughts on the references above.

There was a recent thread on dispensationalism where I commented on Justin.

Anyone want to take a crack at answering John MacArthur here?

Perhaps it would be better to discuss his opinions there so as not to take this thread off topic.

Thanks, Rev. Winzer. I wasn't aware of that thread.

More importantly, what he does not mention is Christ on earth in Jerusalem during this thousand years. The (modern) premil Second Coming is predicated on that belief. So it is safe to say that he does not mention two key components of the premil view.

It is quite possible to take his words to identify a spiritual resurrection and then a physical one separated by a thousand years. This make sense especially in light of the last sentence in the second section, “Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’” This description follows the clause, “and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.”

My point being that the idea of nascent premillennialism in Justin’s writing is not as clear as I first thought.

I agree Tom. It's not as clear as I had assumed either.

Therefore I believe we have concluded that Premillennialism is at variance with the WCF, it has never been held among those who are orthodox, and anyone who might suggest that it is biblical is an "extremist."

Hey guys, I find this discussion fascinating. I am new to Puritan Board. I am an avid reader, but not much of a computer guy. So please go easy on me I knew the late Jim Boice personally. I never knew him to espouse the pre-trib view, even though he was certainly a Premil. Was Jerremiah Burroughs a Congregationalist? He was part of the Westminster Assembly and was Premil. Thanks, I am glad to be amongst such learned men. I think I may be out of my league though.

__________________
E. Thomas Young
Covenant Presbyterian Church PCA
Husband of Shaunna
Father of Danielle and Eric II

Dear E. Thomas Young, If you would like to know his views, I would highly recommend his book "The Last and Future World" (Zondervan:1974). His Pre-trib, Premil views are clear in this book. Of Course, some here on this Board must conclude that he was an "extremist." I am not as learned as these dear scholars are, and I must confess before them, that I personally loved his ministry in the Word.

Knowing Jim Boice personally. I find it a bit strange that someone would find him to be an "extremist" and therefore dismiss the ministry of such a great man of God. As Ryle stated, "The best of men are men at best." I remember R.C. Sproul saying that he felt it was God's judgement on the Church to have taken Boice off the Earth. Just a thought.

He was, indeed, a Great man of God! At least that is what I believe. Now the Scholars may not agree with that. I apologize.

-----Added 9/10/2009 at 05:04:39 EST-----

Therefore, I believe we have established, that Premillennialism is at variance with the WCF, there is a vital question as whether premillennialism ever even existed before the 19th Century and John Nelson Darbey, and that anyone within the Presbyterian church who has ever held to any form PremIllennialism, is upon the best authority we can present, an "extremist."

I'm closing this thread because we appear to be spinning our tires. Let's give the topic a break, and if after rereading the entire thread there are some unanswered questions perhaps we can have a new thread, of a more manageable length, to discuss those subsidiary issues.

As a recapitulation, let me observe:
1. The terms of pre, post and a-millenialism are anachronistic when applied to the Westminster Assembly.
2. While some historians have maintained that there was something comparable to premillenialism at the Westminster Assembly, quotations from the primary sources suggest that they may well have overstated their case.
3. Some churches wishing to subscribe to the Westminster Standards and hold to or permit premillenialism have modified the Standards in one way or another (by revision, like the BPC, or by addendum, like the FPC).
4. Views that today we would call premillenial do have quite a long pedigree, but to a large degree this has been among extremists (that's why Thomas Goodwin calls it an "old error").
5. It is not necessary to conclude that all premillenialists are extremists: the question must be if their premillenialism drives them to deny some essential of the faith.