Apostle's Creed:
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

The Nicene Creed:
according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

Athanasian Creed:
He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

Belgic Confession of Faith Chapter XXXVII:
Finally we believe, according to God's Word, that when the time appointed by the Lord is come (which is unknown to all creatures) and the number of the elect is complete, our Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven, bodily and visibly, as he ascended, with great glory and majesty, to declare himself the judge of the living and the dead. He will burn this old world, in fire and flame, in order to cleanse it. Then all human creatures will appear in person before the great judge-- men, women, and children, who have lived from the beginning until the end of the world.

WCF Chapter XXXIII:
As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.

One thing is obvious in those creeds and confessions, there is no gap between the coming of Jesus, the judgment of all men and the resurrection of the Saints.

The logical conclusion:
As preterism is condemned as heresy for its departure from the four ecnumenical creeds, so is premil. Premil should be treated the same as preterism if being consistent.

__________________
Yigang Xu
Husband of Yele, Father of Anna (07/17/08)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
Bethesda, Maryland

"Thou crownest the year with thy goodness; and thy paths drop fatness. They drop upon the pastures of the wilderness: and the little hills rejoice on every side." Psalm 65:10,11

Merely because a doctrine is not given support in creeds and confessions doesn't automatically or necessarily make it heretical. No secondary standard can include everything the Bible teaches. Only if a doctrine is not supported by Scripture is a doctrine heretical.

The historic premil position has been held since the earliest days of the church since, in the view of those who hold it, it has biblical support.

__________________
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)

I didn't know that preterism was heretical either?

BTW, I tend to be historic premil in case anybody was wondering.

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

So, you are prepared to condemn G.E. Lad to hell as a heretic for believing in historic premillenialism?


Just silly.


Look up the word heresy.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Full (not partial) preterism is clearly heretical.

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

So, you are prepared to condemn G.E. Lad to hell as a heretic for believing in historic premillenialism?


Just silly.


Look up the word heresy.[/QUOTE]

No, I wouldn't condemn anyone going to hell because of premillenialism. The argument is that preterism being condemned as heresy due to departure of the ecumenical creeds, so should it be for premil to be consistent.

BTW, I am not a preterist.

Even Dispensationalists don't depart from the historic creeds. At least they don't deny them, and most affirm them.

Now, all dispensationalist are premil, but not all premill are dispensationalists.

I'm trying to figure out how preterists are heretics because the depart from the early creads. Heretics is the key word. Views on the book revelation don't a heretic make. Of course, Sproul is the preterist that I'm familiar with. And premill was a view when the creeds were written. So a good question would be how are full preterists heretics and how is that the same/how would that apply to premill?

From wikipedia:

If the only argument for condemning full preterism is because they differ from the creeds, then that argument can be used to condemn as heresy any group (i.e. premills) that departs from the creeds. Scripture itself condemns full preterism, not just the creeds. (2 Tim 2:14-18)

__________________
Chris Thomas | SBC-Founders | Fairbanks, AK

"Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they,... did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed... If it had not been for Calvinists,... and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists." ~ Sir John Skelton

The creeds affirm the last judgement, the resurrection are events right after the second coming of Christ. Premil has a gap between the coming of Christ and the last judgement, as well as two resurrections. Apostle's creed and Nicene creed state this implicitly. But Athanatian creed states this explicitly, by no means can a premil accept the creed.

Preterism denies the bodily coming of Christ and the bodily resurrection, thus departs from the ecumenical creeds and is condemned as heresy because of that.

Hey YX,

I'm a little slow on the uptake on a Sunday afternoon. But, I don't see the problem. Premils would have no more difficulty with the ecumenical creeds than they do with the NT. And, the fact that both premil and what we now know as amil views were present in the early church makes it highly unlikely that anyone would have seen it as "heretical." (BTW I used to be historic premil but now identify myself more with the amil camp).

Are you trying to fight the issue of eschatology or merely using it as your foil for pointing out the inadequacy of using the creeds? I was not sure what direction you were moving in your post.

__________________
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?

Hyper or Full Preterism does, not Partial Preterism of which I am one.

__________________
Doug
Baptist
Hemet, Ca
Old Time Radio Podcast

No, this post is not to fight with historical premil view, I am just trying to raise the issue of the usage of the creeds by which preterism is condemned, thus inconsistency exists. I think nobody would call historical premil as heresy and so am I.

This paper collects some well-know Reformed (Confessional) theologians commenting in the vein that a (classical) premillenial view is at least possible.

http://www.goldcountrybaptist.org/ho...oc?sec_id=1477

My understanding is that Jeremiah Burroughs, convener of the Westminster Divines, held a (classical) premillennial view.

I'm not advocating a millennial view of eschatology here nor that it has been the majority report, only that Reformed, confessional theologians have held three millennial views.

YX,

You are missing the point. It is not that a doctrine is contained in the creed, but it is what type of error is held. So for example, we can say that to be opposed to infant baptism is contrary to the Westminster Confession, for example. But that does not make a credobaptist a heretic. On the other hand, one could take a different view of baptism, such as baptismal salvation or a complete rejection of baptism, and that would be a far more serious matter.

I'm sorry, but this whole thread is unhelpful. To equate a difference (even with the creeds) on the timing of the final resurrection with an outright rejection of the resurrection is ludicrous. Full preterism is heresy, both because it contradicts the creeds, and the clear teaching of Scripture.

I will ask you directly, and I will report the thread and ask the Administrators to wait for a response:

Are you a full preterist? Is that why you started this thread, to gain a foothold for full preterism?

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

No, I am not a full preterist and I am not condeming classical premil as heresy either. Just to raise the issue of its departure to the ecumenical creeds.

But anyway, I don't think conviction of full preterism means a man is lost. I don't dare to say that.

Thank you

"Heresy" doesn't pertain to the nature of the doctrine so much as the divisive method used to propagate it; it does not therefore necessarily depart from the fundamentals of the faith. Premillennialism departs from the Westminster Confession, and in so far as it is propagated with stubbornness and zeal may be called a "heresy."

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

So, if I "propagate" the doctrine of substitutionary atonement "with stubbornness and zeal" that doctrine can be called a heresy? Please...

Yes, heresy DOES pertain to the nature of the doctrine. It's the content of the false doctrine that makes it heretical, not the methods or the tone with which it is propagated. If I were to say that God is three persons, that content makes it heretical - even if I propagate it with nothing but sweetness and light!

You're condemning the sizzle when you should be condemning the (false) steak.

Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.

It is true

__________________
Kevin - PCA - Mississippi

"What, for some, is sin, others do to the glory of God. And the good Dr. Pentecost's remarks notwithstanding, I intend to go home tonight and smoke a cigar to the glory of God. It is a kind of incense drifting to Heaven." - Charles Spurgeon

"Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!" - 2 Corinthians 9:15

Yes, but, just going by what you stated in your post, the doctrine could be considered heretical based on the "stubbornness" or "zeal" with which it is promoted.

You're usually a wise soul, Matthew, but that post of yours has really got me scratching my head.

Sorry Richard; in the context of the discussion I assumed "erroneous" doctrine was at issue. Hope that clarifies.

I knew what you meant, and agree. Paul lists 'heresies' as a lust of the flesh in Gal 5:20. Error, in and of itself, is not a lust, divisiveness is.

__________________


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?

"Christ's Return and the Westminster Confession of Faith," Gordon H. Clark

The PB is made up of halfly of heretics then because almost all the paedos/credos defend their doctrine with aggressiveness.

Isn't heresy defined as false teaching that can lead a person astray, ie, teachings that will not truly save a person?

Dennis, that is true as far as mere theological opinion goes; but add to it the circumstances of 2 Thess. 2:2, of souls being agitated by the teaching "that the day of Christ is at hand," and perhaps being divided so as to form new groups, as church history records, and I believe you have a heresy and not merely an error.

That would be a damnable heresy which denies the Lord.

hmm, I alway thought that was redundant to say damnable heresy. So what would be a good definition of heresy then? I ask this to help clarify what I say in this thread. If they are not the same, maybe I could throw around the word heretic then more than I do? (esp. concerning Karl Barth?)

James Durham (Concerning Scandal, 225): "Heresy is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavour to propagate the same."

William Perkins (Galatians, 382): "there are three things in heresy, an errour, in the maine doctrine, conviction of the party touching his errour, and obstinacy after conviction."

Matthew,

You addressed Clark's ecclesiastical "bottom line." I was wondering what you made of his historical judgment:

Thanks Rev. Winzer - I was using Cairns def - "A deliberate departure from Christian orthodoxy, together with acceptance of error." and Baker's Dictionary of Theology's def - "not merely opinion, but false teaching which leads people away from God's revelation." I guess I assumed this had mainly to do with soteriology. But from what it seems people are saying, it can include other doctrine.

(hmm, can I say that Barth is a heretic then because of his views of scripture? I know that question is off-topic, but it's both instructional and personal (can we say V is for Vendetta?)

WCF 8:4, "and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world." This is explicitly anti-chiliast. Larger Catechism answer 88 ties the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the final judgement as one continuous series of events. This leads me to regard Gordon Clark's analysis as faulty.

I think a erronous doctrine tied with stubborness or zeal is what has been mentioned. Not a biblical doctrine. Such thing no only cause division and unneccessary separation with others, and is a warmbed for a proud and self-righteousness spirit. Just like the pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensational label of some people which separates themselves thereof and are proud about being orthodox while others are in deadly errors.

This definition has some problem, basically Christian orthodoxy is defined in creeds especiall the ecumenical creeds, but the premil position departs from both the ecumenical creeds and the reformed creeds as well. Dr. Cairns's definition puts premil view as a heresy which are held by many including himself. Which I believe does not go that far as to become a heresy.

I think if YXU's opening post had been posed as a question rather than a shot across the bow, it would have led us down a different path. I take his OP to be saying that the noted creeds seem to specifically deny premillennialism to the same extent that they specifically deny full preterism -- his bolding marking his points.

So, the question is, Can premillennialism be reconciled with the wording of the creeds? If so, how?

P.S. I speak as one who left dispensationalism a number of years ago, has been historic premill (by default) since then, but who is in the midst of potentially moving wholly into the Amill camp.

P.P.S There's no more ardent anti-dispie than a former dispie.

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

Is this what you meant to say?

__________________
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

We defend our doctrine with aggressiveness on PB, but we don't go to each others churches and try to stir the pot.

Uh, no, actually. [Insert sheepish grin here.] That content is definitely not heretical! Good catch. I'm surprised that no one else caught it.

I think I definitely need something stronger than a 60-watt bulb in my brain...

Yes, that clarifies. As usual, context is everything. Thanks, Matthew.

Well, the historic premil position doesn't need to be reconciled to the wording of the creeds. Historic premils believe that the position can be defended from Scripture (as it has been since the early days of the church).

It's not in the creeds because most of the creed writers were not premil - even though, in the case of the Westminster Assembly, William Twisse, one of the prolocutors (moderators) was! He must have been out having a sandwich and a beer when they were voting on eschatological matters...