Thread: Premil's departure from creeds and confessions and one logical conclusion

Originally Posted by YXU

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.

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.

I didn't know that preterism was heretical either?

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

Originally Posted by YXU

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Grymir

I didn't know that preterism was heretical either?

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

Full (not partial) preterism is clearly heretical.

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?

Originally Posted by Grymir

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:

Full Preterism

Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that Full Preterists believe all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia. Full Preterism is also known by several other names: Consistent Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Hyper-Preterism (a term used by some opponents of the Full Preterist position and considered to be derogatory by Full Preterists), and Pantelism (the term "Pantelism" comes from the Greek and means, "all things having been accomplished"). Full Preterism holds that Jesus' Second Coming is to be viewed not as a future-to-us bodily return, but rather a "return" in glory manifested by the physical destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in AD 70 by foreign armies in a manner similar to various Old Testament descriptions of God coming to destroy other nations in righteous judgment. Full Preterism also holds that the Resurrection of the dead did not entail the raising of the physical body, but rather the resurrection of the soul from the "place of the dead", known as Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek). As such, the righteous dead obtained a spiritual and substantial body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead were cast into the Lake of Fire. Some Full Preterists believe this judgment is ongoing and takes effect upon the death of each individual (Heb. 9:27).[citation needed] The New Heavens and the New Earth are also equated with the New Covenant and the fulfillment of the Law in AD 70 and are to be viewed in the same manner by which a Christian is considered a "new creation" upon his or her conversion.
Full Preterists typically reject the authority of the Creeds to condemn their view, stating that the Creeds were written by uninspired and fallible men, and that appeals should be made instead to the Scriptures themselves (sola scriptura).

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)

Originally Posted by Grymir

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?

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.

Originally Posted by YXU

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.

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

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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.

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?

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

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?

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."

Originally Posted by armourbearer

"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."

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.

Originally Posted by bookslover

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

Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Grymir

I didn't know that preterism was heretical either?

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

Full (not partial) preterism is clearly heretical.

It is true

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by bookslover

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

Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.

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.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by bookslover

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

Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.

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.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

"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."

Because dispensationalism has brought premillennialism into disrepute in some quarters, there is renewed interest in a third view, amillennialism. This is the simple view that there is no millennium at all. Christ just comes and heaven ensues. The amillennialists claim that the Westminster Confession favors them, though one researcher asserts that the Westminster divines were postmillenarians. The Confession itself asserts neither the postmillennial or premillennial view. Nor does it assert amillennialism. In the Larger Catechism there are phrases about a general resurrection that do not favor premillennialism. But whether the authors of the Confession individually accepted one view or another, they refrained in the Confession from either asserting or denying a future millennium.

The Reformers were in general opposed to premillennialism. Just as in the early church some people interpreted Christ's death as the payment of a ransom to the devil, and so, illogically, brought the idea of ransom itself into disfavor with later liberal theologians; so too the extravagances of the chiliasts or millenarians in early Protestant times brought the premillennial idea into disfavor. The Westminster divines, however, were wise in avoiding a choice among these views: the subject was not ready, nor is it yet ready, for creedal determination. Loraine Boettner, whose book The Millennium is one fourth a defense of postmillenarianism and two thirds an attack against premillenarianism, makes a notable statement on page one, which ought to be reaffirmed by advocates of all three views:

"Each of the systems is therefore consistently evangelical, and each has been held by many able and sincere men. The differences arise, not because of any conscious or intended disloyalty to Scripture,"

but, may I add, because there are disagreements in exegesis.

"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?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

"Each of the systems is therefore consistently evangelical, and each has been held by many able and sincere men. The differences arise, not because of any conscious or intended disloyalty to Scripture," but, may I add, because there are disagreements in exegesis.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Grymir

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

That would be a damnable heresy which denies the Lord.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Grymir

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

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?)

Originally Posted by Grymir

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."

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

"Each of the systems is therefore consistently evangelical, and each has been held by many able and sincere men. The differences arise, not because of any conscious or intended disloyalty to Scripture," but, may I add, because there are disagreements in exegesis.

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

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.

Matthew,

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

The amillennialists claim that the Westminster Confession favors them, though one researcher asserts that the Westminster divines were postmillenarians. The Confession itself asserts neither the postmillennial or premillennial view. Nor does it assert amillennialism. In the Larger Catechism there are phrases about a general resurrection that do not favor premillennialism. But whether the authors of the Confession individually accepted one view or another, they refrained in the Confession from either asserting or denying a future millennium.

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?)

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

I was wondering what you made of his historical judgment:

The amillennialists claim that the Westminster Confession favors them, though one researcher asserts that the Westminster divines were postmillenarians. The Confession itself asserts neither the postmillennial or premillennial view. Nor does it assert amillennialism. In the Larger Catechism there are phrases about a general resurrection that do not favor premillennialism. But whether the authors of the Confession individually accepted one view or another, they refrained in the Confession from either asserting or denying a future millennium.

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.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by bookslover

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

Substitutionary atonement is truth, not error.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Grymir

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?)

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.

Originally Posted by bookslover

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!

Is this what you meant to say?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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

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

Originally Posted by py3ak

Originally Posted by bookslover

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!

Is this what you meant to say?

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...

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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

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