Thread: One inconsistency regarding the PB rules

On the membership confessional requirements, we read:

c. Historic Creeds: All members of this board hold to the basic creeds of the church: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, and the Definitions of Chalcedon.

Below is the the Athanasian Creed:

THE ATHANASIAN CREED
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
2. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
3. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance
4. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.
5. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
6. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.
7. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.
8. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
9. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
10. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
11. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
12. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;
13. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
14. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
15. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
16. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
17. And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.
18. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;
19. so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.
20. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
21. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
22. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
23. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
24. And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.
25. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.
26. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
27. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
28. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
29. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
30. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
31. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
32. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
33. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
34. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.
35. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
36. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
37. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
38. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
39. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
41. And shall give account of their own works.
42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

I have highlighted some parts of the creed, in fact, all the premil members of the forum don't hold to the Athanasian Creed, for the creed states Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

I have raised the issue in another post regarding premil's departure. I suggest that Athanasian Creed be removed from the membership requirement to be consistent. If not, we depart from the biblical reason for being a confessional people. If the Athanasian Creed should still be the membership requirements, then the premil members should all be excluded to meet the creed.

YX,

This is a matter of your interpretation. It may be a bit strained, but I see no reason why a Premil could not affirm the Athanasian Creed (and many have done so for centuries). Just because you think that Premil contradicts this, does not make it so (and again, I speak as a convinced Amil).

The only bolded section that would even be in question is #40 and the parsing of "all." Can I possibly suggest that you find another hobby horse to ride?

39. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
41. And shall give account of their own works.
42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.


In the pre-mill paradigm
Concerning:
39 -- Christ does not return to judge the living and the dead, but to set up his earthly kingdom
40 -- Not all men are resurrected
41 -- Not all men give an account, being judgment is suspened by 1000 years
42 -- Everlasting life does not begin at the coming of Christ...only an earthly kingdom, in which there is still death
43 -- this "catholic faith" is in error, according to a pre-mill concerning the "last things"


So, a premill would not be explicitly "creedal" on some of these issues...but I think they still fall within the "jist" and general idea's behind the creed, namely--Christ's return, judgement, resurrection, everlasting life, etc.

And, if we exclude pre-mills, then we would probably have to exclude some of those in the preterist camp as well...but, that is also why I consider myself a "Creedal Preterist".

The key phrase there is "at whose coming" and there is not a level of specificity. The Premil would simply argue that the "coming" is the Second Coming (at which all those things will happen) and not the rapture event. The Westminister Standards are far more specific.

YXU,

Even if it is argued that a person with a premil eschatology could not affirm the Athanasian creed, it would not be an inconsistency with the rules. It could be argued that it's an inconsistency in enforcing the rules for membership but tnot the rules themselves.

Yet, you're missing a very obvious rule that makes this whole discussion moot.

Harping on this issue, as YXU is doing, comes across as argumentative and arrogant. This approach is not usually tolerated for very long (I would hope).

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

YX,

This is a matter of your interpretation. It may be a bit strained, but I see no reason why a Premil could not affirm the Athanasian Creed (and many have done so for centuries). Just because you think that Premil contradicts this, does not make it so (and again, I speak as a convinced Amil).

The only bolded section that would even be in question is #40 and the parsing of "all." Can I possibly suggest that you find another hobby horse to ride?

Do you think your wording is edifiying? I am basing the suggestion based on a normal interpretation on the Athanasian Creed. You are trying to make the Creed vague to tolerate error. If you define my interpretation of the Athanasian Creed as wrong, then, the right interpretation which you recommend causes liberals and apostacy in confessing churches.

Truth is absolute, and there is always right and wrong, trying to make everything right thus to create a loving environment is not loving at all.

Because of this spirit we see so much presbyterian denominations claiming to submit to the Confessions, but in reality, are moving on the another way.

YXU,

One thing I had to learn when I became a member of the Puritan Board is that I was a guest here. The Admins and Mods have the right to do things the way they deem to be biblically correct because this is their board. If you don't understand that you're a guest that has been welcomed here by them then you will fail to see how you fit in on this board. You may not agree with everything that is said and done, but at the end of the day YOU AGREED to submit to the rules and authority of the PB to become a member here. That doesn't mean you can't voice your opinions and thoughts, but I've only read a few of your posts thus far and it seems obvious that you are driving your horse straight into the ground.

Perhaps you should slow down just a bit and consider the verse in your signature line before starting threads about where and why the PB is inconsistent or whatever.

God bless.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

YXU,

Even if it is argued that a person with a premil eschatology could not affirm the Athanasian creed, it would not be an inconsistency with the rules. It could be argued that it's an inconsistency in enforcing the rules for membership but tnot the rules themselves.

Yet, you're missing a very obvious rule that makes this whole discussion moot.

The rule themselves are very good. Just like the WCF is good, but inconsistency still exists for the practise is different from the rule. Just like every presbyterian claim the WCF, but do they actually all hold WCF?

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

YXU,

One thing I had to learn when I became a member of the Puritan Board is that I was a guest here. The Admins and Mods have the right to do things the way they deem to be biblically correct because this is their board. If you don't understand that you're a guest that has been welcomed here by them then you will fail to see how you fit in on this board. You may not agree with everything that is said and done, but at the end of the day YOU AGREED to submit to the rules and authority of the PB to become a member here. That doesn't mean you can't voice your opinions and thoughts, but I've only read a few of your posts thus far and it seems obvious that you are driving your horse straight into the ground.

Perhaps you should slow down just a bit and consider the verse in your signature line before starting threads about where and why the PB is inconsistent or whatever.

God bless.

Thanks for your reply, it is warm. I will definitely take your advices. Anyway, I am not angry about those things, my spirit is peaceful. I believe I am making faithful statements not false statements.

YXU, the interpretation of line 40 seems to be the problem here. However, as has been noted, it is consistent with a premil interpretation thusly: premils do believe that at a certain time conjunctive with Christ's coming (they usually say it is the great white throne judgment), all will be raised from the dead and given their glorified body. That is all that the creed is saying as well. I do not believe the creed was fashioned to deal with this particular theological issue, anyway.

XY,

As Pastor Barnhart pointed out, we are guests here. The PB also is not a church and even churches have made certain exceptions from time to time, not to permit error, but rather because growth and the potential for growth is seen and room is made for that. We have had many members come without a perfect or full understanding of the Creeds and Confessions and grow in their knowledge and understanding while here. It's called "having Grace". I have also interacted online with more than a few of these gents and what Fred said was not being "unedifying" either...rather it was possibly more of a visual point being made. There are "bigger fish to fry" or more important things.

Originally Posted by YXU

You are trying to make the Creed vague to tolerate error.

By the very nature of what a creed is, it cannot be absolute or all encompassing, there is a certain vagueness to creeds.

e.g., the Apostles Creed does not say eveything about everything..it is not all encompassing...but that is the design. It is supposed to be basic.

A creed is not a pillar and foundation of the church, or the truth. A creed has a purpose, but it is an error, imo, to extend its purpose past that for which it is designed.

Originally Posted by YXU

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

YXU,

Even if it is argued that a person with a premil eschatology could not affirm the Athanasian creed, it would not be an inconsistency with the rules. It could be argued that it's an inconsistency in enforcing the rules for membership but tnot the rules themselves.

Yet, you're missing a very obvious rule that makes this whole discussion moot.

The rule themselves are very good. Just like the WCF is good, but inconsistency still exists for the practise is different from the rule. Just like every presbyterian claim the WCF, but do they actually all hold WCF?

Did you pass over my last sentence. There is a clause in the rules that makes your concern moot.

I don't think anti-premillennialism is the correct interpretation of the creed. Historically most church fathers were premillennial (historic not dispensational) so it doesn't make sense that he would damn them.

Off topic NOTE:

I do find it interesting that the requirements of joining this forum are stricter then that of joining the varoius Churches which the forum represents.

e.g., The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You do not have to hold to the WCF in order to be a member, though one must hold to the WCF in order to serve in office...nor do you have to hold to the three forms of unity, or the 1689 l.b.c., etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this


Please nobody take this the wrong way...it is just a simple observance.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by YXU

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

YXU,

Even if it is argued that a person with a premil eschatology could not affirm the Athanasian creed, it would not be an inconsistency with the rules. It could be argued that it's an inconsistency in enforcing the rules for membership but tnot the rules themselves.

Yet, you're missing a very obvious rule that makes this whole discussion moot.

The rule themselves are very good. Just like the WCF is good, but inconsistency still exists for the practise is different from the rule. Just like every presbyterian claim the WCF, but do they actually all hold WCF?

Did you pass over my last sentence. There is a clause in the rules that makes your concern moot.

Please state the rule so that I can observe it.

Originally Posted by MOSES

Off topic NOTE:

I do find it interesting that the requirements of joining this forum are stricter then that of joining the varoius Churches which the forum represents.

e.g., The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You do not have to hold to the WCF in order to be a member, though one must hold to the WCF in order to serve in office...nor do you have to hold to the three forms of unity, or the 1689 l.b.c., etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this


Please nobody take this the wrong way...it is just a simple observance.

You're not wrong in one sense. I've always found that interesting that people are shocked that this would be the case. This isn't the Church.

The Church has a responsibility and resources at the local level to deal with divergent views. Even an OPC can permit a member in their body that is a pre-mil dispensationalist (hopefully on the mend) but the real question is this: What would happen if, during every Sunday School class, that person started getting up and teaching their view to the entire class? Or, worse yet, what if they started getting up and teaching the whole Church during worship?

That should give you a small indication as to why our requirements are more restrictive. In truth, we don't really examine applicants for their orthodoxy and very few would pass muster if exact subscription is the requirement. In fact, if I wanted to be uber-punctilious, I could probably dig into YXU to the point where I'd find a reason to find some un-Confessional opinion.

Most participants here are aware where they part from the Confessions and are respectful enough to keep their opinions to themselves where it would be extremely disruptive. This is one reason why we permit certain exceptions on a case by case basis.

Originally Posted by YXU

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by YXU

The rule themselves are very good. Just like the WCF is good, but inconsistency still exists for the practise is different from the rule. Just like every presbyterian claim the WCF, but do they actually all hold WCF?

Did you pass over my last sentence. There is a clause in the rules that makes your concern moot.

Please state the rule so that I can observe it.

Read the rules more carefully please.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by MOSES

Off topic NOTE:

I do find it interesting that the requirements of joining this forum are stricter then that of joining the varoius Churches which the forum represents.

e.g., The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You do not have to hold to the WCF in order to be a member, though one must hold to the WCF in order to serve in office...nor do you have to hold to the three forms of unity, or the 1689 l.b.c., etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this


Please nobody take this the wrong way...it is just a simple observance.

You're not wrong in one sense. I've always found that interesting that people are shocked that this would be the case. This isn't the Church.

The Church has a responsibility and resources at the local level to deal with divergent views. Even an OPC can permit a member in their body that is a pre-mil dispensationalist (hopefully on the mend) but the real question is this: What would happen if, during every Sunday School class, that person started getting up and teaching their view to the entire class? Or, worse yet, what if they started getting up and teaching the whole Church during worship?

That should give you a small indication as to why our requirements are more restrictive. In truth, we don't really examine applicants for their orthodoxy and very few would pass muster if exact subscription is the requirement. In fact, if I wanted to be uber-punctilious, I could probably dig into YXU to the point where I'd find a reason to find some un-Confessional opinion.

Most participants here are aware where they part from the Confessions and are respectful enough to keep their opinions to themselves where it would be extremely disruptive. This is one reason why we permit certain exceptions on a case by case basis.

Now that I know, it does make really good sense.
Thanks Rich

Originally Posted by MOSES

Originally Posted by YXU

You are trying to make the Creed vague to tolerate error.

By the very nature of what a creed is, it cannot be absolute or all encompassing, there is a certain vagueness to creeds.

e.g., the Apostles Creed does not say eveything about everything..it is not all encompassing...but that is the design. It is supposed to be basic.

A creed is not a pillar and foundation of the church, or the truth. A creed has a purpose, but it is an error, imo, to extend its purpose past that for which it is designed.

I believe in God almighty refutes many heresies and errors.

It is a very bad judgment to weigh one's faithfulness to the faith based on his millennial view. It pretends to know his view better than he does. It is his vow, and if he agrees with the Athanasian Creed though he is a Pre-millennialist, that's his business. It is not ours to judge that. He is not being unfaithful. He is not denying any part of the Athanasian Creed on his holding to the Pre-mil view. If he adds unwarranted provisos to that view, then that's another matter. It is for that reason that we do not accept the Dispensational Pre-mil view, it seems to me.

You cannot pigeon-hole a Pre-mil like that, making him say what he may not be saying at all. You cannot put your interpretation into his vows. It is his business, as long as he is not denying the foundational tenets of the Reformed faith. And besides, its up to his church, not you.
And also, if this Board accepts a Pre-mil, then that's the Board's prerogative.

Brethren,

I believe brother YXU has a language barrier. English is not his native language.

Maybe some patience with him is in order?

Friends, a word of caution. I do not believe that some of the responses to YX have demonstrated a spirit of charity or sympathy with his concerns. He is not just a computer-generated avatar; he is a real person. He reads the creeds, which we should be thankful for. He desires that his religion conform to the beliefs of the Church, which is noble.

In his study, he has come to what seems to him an inconsistency of practice. Rather than question his motives or accuse him of having a "hobby horse," why not be gentle and proceed to edification? Are any of us above inconsistency? Are any of us immune to error? In addition, I know YX's church and pastor, that they are humble servants of God. We have no reason to assume his posts are an indication of mean-spiritedness or any other vice.

I am intrigued by this seeming inconsistency, and I have appreciated the posts so far that have addressed it. I hope that knowledgeable people will continue to address the issue that has been raised.

Charlie,

This issue was vetted in another thread and now it's being rehabilitated in a new thread. There is, it seems to me, a strange desire to figure out any way to make the point that a pre-mil is not within Confessional boundaries.

If it was a single thread on the subject then I'd be less curious but to make it one of the first posts on the board and then move into the FAQ/Rules (after not reading the rules carefully) to tell us we either need to change the rules or kick the pre-mils to the curb is very odd. Some might consider it arrogant.

YXU is a big boy. If you're going to have the brass to post like he did then he needs to be man enough to hear the replies/criticism that will ensue. Christian love doesn't alway require we play paddy cakes with men when iron is being sharpened.

Originally Posted by YXU

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

YX,

This is a matter of your interpretation. It may be a bit strained, but I see no reason why a Premil could not affirm the Athanasian Creed (and many have done so for centuries). Just because you think that Premil contradicts this, does not make it so (and again, I speak as a convinced Amil).

The only bolded section that would even be in question is #40 and the parsing of "all." Can I possibly suggest that you find another hobby horse to ride?

Do you think your wording is edifiying? I am basing the suggestion based on a normal interpretation on the Athanasian Creed. You are trying to make the Creed vague to tolerate error. If you define my interpretation of the Athanasian Creed as wrong, then, the right interpretation which you recommend causes liberals and apostacy in confessing churches.

Truth is absolute, and there is always right and wrong, trying to make everything right thus to create a loving environment is not loving at all.

Because of this spirit we see so much presbyterian denominations claiming to submit to the Confessions, but in reality, are moving on the another way.

Brother,

It seems rather obvious you have a considerable axe to grind against premillenialism. I don't know, maybe some of the smaller Presbyterian bodies prohibit premillenarians from serving, but historic premils can and do serve as elders in the OPC and PCA. While a few members of the PB may hold to some form or another of dispensational premillenialism, advocacy of it here is prohibited since it has been judged to be unconfessional. However it is recognized that historic premillenialism is confessional. As a former moderator of the PB, I can tell you that, right or wrong, you are not going to get your way here on this issue, so my advice to you is to either accept it or move on.

Originally Posted by MOSES

Off topic NOTE:

I do find it interesting that the requirements of joining this forum are stricter then that of joining the varoius Churches which the forum represents.

e.g., The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You do not have to hold to the WCF in order to be a member, though one must hold to the WCF in order to serve in office...nor do you have to hold to the three forms of unity, or the 1689 l.b.c., etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this


Please nobody take this the wrong way...it is just a simple observance.

You are not wrong but if I'm not mistaken the rules are the way they are for practical reasons. (Early on in the boards history it was not this strict.) But with the board as large as it is now and as prominent as it is now, it would be a zoo that 100 moderators could not control if it allowed anyone to join who could affirm the 4 or 5 questions (depending on the denomination) that Presbyterian church members have to affirm.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Charlie,

This issue was vetted in another thread and now it's being rehabilitated in a new thread. There is, it seems to me, a strange desire to figure out any way to make the point that a pre-mil is not within Confessional boundaries.

If it was a single thread on the subject then I'd be less curious but to make it one of the first posts on the board and then move into the FAQ/Rules (after not reading the rules carefully) to tell us we either need to change the rules or kick the pre-mils to the curb is very odd. Some might consider it arrogant.

YXU is a big boy. If you're going to have the brass to post like he did then he needs to be man enough to hear the replies/criticism that will ensue. Christian love doesn't alway require we play paddy cakes with men when iron is being sharpened.

Administrator,

I did post a post before regarding this issue, it was placed in the eschatological forum. There were quite a lot of replies, but none of which actually trying to refute me through a analysis of the support verses I raised.

I have read the rules before I post the post. I didn't see any obvious violation of the rules, that is why I am asking you which rule you are referring too. Frankly, I don't quite understand your message so I asked you and I read again after you suggested me to read it.

The reason I post this in this section is for a different purpose, the previous post is for discussion over this topic, this post is trying to raise this issue regarding the PB rules and its administration.

I do apologize for you administrator as the host of the forum which is designed to edify each other and glorify God, for any of violation to your rules due to my ignorance. But I don't think many of the arguments posted are based on good logical or strong scripture ground or a loving spirit as well.

I don't speak English natively, but I do understand some wording like a hobby to ride a horse does not mean good things and is not relevant to the topic.

We definitely need faithful confessions as a confessing people. God gave us a whole form of doctrines which we need to hold fast to, and among the reformed people of God, we need the confessions for an agreement. None of the argument actually refutes the issue I raised which is that the Athanasian Creed teaches the second coming of Christ is the end of history on a scriptual basis. And the Creed specifies that the faith should be held undefiled and correctly.

If a man confess it but yet disagrees that the second coming of our Christ is the end of history, itself departs from the Creed already. So I am suggesting that if rules are being setup to hold certain creeds, then it should be assured that the creeds are actually held. This is to be faithful to Christ and to love Christ.

We know that all the presybeterian denominations hold the WCF, but there are apostacy and liberals in some of the denominations. We know that basically all the confessing Christians believe that the Bible is true and is the only authority of faith and of godly living, but yet, we see to many painful declension among confessing Christians world wide. So this is really a issue, people are confessing, but are people faithfuly confessing their faith? Many confessing presbyterians don't believe in singing psalm exclusively as the God ordained element of worship, many don't believe in the duty of the civil magistrates to submit to the first table of the ten commandements, many still observe holy days which is prohibited in the scripture and the directory of publik worship. There are all problems to be observed.

I am raising this issue regarding the issue itself, not an attack to any man on the board or other Chrisitans. But some of the replies to me are attacking me as a person, I apologize again if I misunderstand your culture. And all my views are taught by various ministers of the Gospel, so I am not interpretating the scripure by myself who is a layman or inventing some new things(which is stated in directory of family worship). The forum is a good place, I found many useful materials on it that glorify Christ.


Regards,

Xu

Xu, I think you might be reading into some comments a "tone of voice" that may not be there, as a matter of fact. For instance, I have offered an interpretation of the Athanasian Creed as being fully consistent with pre-millenial interpretations (I am amillenial myself). It was not offered in any kind of spirit of hostility. Would you like to interact with that interpretation?

XYU,

I apologize for using the phrase "hobby horse." I have obviously offended you, and for that I am sorry. Please forgive me for speaking rashly and without due care.

I did not mean it in a spiteful way, but rather as a summary of my observation that the majority of your participation on this board has been around a design to have those who view Premillennial views placed outside the pale of basic orthodoxy. You spent much energy on this in your earlier thread, and now once that has run its course, you take a different tactic here, seeking to use the PB rules to show that Premillennial adherents are unsaved. (That is the logical result of your question here - if there is no way in which the Athanasian Creed can be reconciled with Premillennialism, then its proponents are hell-bound.)

Rather, I would advise you that your reading of the Creed is an overly strict one. Lane has pointed out how this is so. History points that out - since to my knowledge no ecclesiastical body has ever used the language you pointed out in the Apostles' Creed or the Athanasian Creed to prove Premils are heretics. That is why, for example, the WLC has more explicit language on the return of Christ.

I simply do not understand what is to be gained by anathamatizing Premils, and don't understand your form of argumentation, which appears to consist of bolding a portion of the Creed, and then when a counter argument is put forward, just bolding it again with a restatment of your position.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Xu, I think you might be reading into some comments a "tone of voice" that may not be there, as a matter of fact. For instance, I have offered an interpretation of the Athanasian Creed as being fully consistent with pre-millenial interpretations (I am amillenial myself). It was not offered in any kind of spirit of hostility. Would you like to interact with that interpretation?

Rev. Keister
38. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
39. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
41. And shall give account of their own works.
42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

I don't quite understand your description of the possible solution. Can you state it in a easier way?

I believe the Creed natrualy teaches that the last judgement follows immediately Christ's coming, and the ressurection happens the same time at His coming. Premil's white throne judgement happens 1000 years after Christ's coming, and premil's rapture is not the the rising of all men. I believe the scriptual support for our belief is simple, II Peter 3:10. I don't know how premil will can reconcile their problems while remain faithful to II Peter 3:10.

Regards,

Xu

YX,

Here is the germane rule, regardless of your agreement that a premil can embrace the Athanasian creed:

e. Under some circumstances, the Admins may approve an applicant who does not fully confess one of these historic confessions but whose soteriological and ecclesiological journey is taking them down that path. This has included some Lutherans, Episcopalians, and some independents in the process of Reforming.

You're a bit of an enigma to me. You note that English is not your first language and that you're a layman still learning some things about Christian theology/history but then you interact with some ministers who are well schooled and have a mature grasp of those things and then you argue with them to make your view of the creed and the Church's history of creeds the normative view.

In other words, you admit to a basic level of ignorance and need to learn but then you won't learn from those you ought to be learning from.

I could even understand if you came here to begin with and said: "I'm new to this whole thing but this seems inconsistent to me..."

Instead, you fully conclude the matter, make your view of the Athanasian creed the normative and only acceptable view and then you place that as a template over every pre-mil and tell the board we're inconsistent to have either the Athanasian Creed and should either drop it or drop the pre-mils.

Then you're challenged on it and say: "Hey guys! My English isn't so good. Go easy on me."

Dude, you set yourself up to have folks play street ball with you. Some people think I'm being mean. I can live with how they perceive things but I take people as they come to an issue. I'm gentle with some who need it and I'm rough with those that I perceive need it. In matters of calling something heresy and that we should be dropping Creeds or dropping board members then a man has put himself out there to be shown very sharply what the nature of the case really is.

Originally Posted by YXU

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Xu, I think you might be reading into some comments a "tone of voice" that may not be there, as a matter of fact. For instance, I have offered an interpretation of the Athanasian Creed as being fully consistent with pre-millenial interpretations (I am amillenial myself). It was not offered in any kind of spirit of hostility. Would you like to interact with that interpretation?

Rev. Keister
38. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
39. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
41. And shall give account of their own works.
42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

I don't quite understand your description of the possible solution. Can you state it in a easier way?

I believe the Creed natrualy teaches that the last judgement follows immediately Christ's coming, and the ressurection happens the same time at His coming. Premil's white throne judgement happens 1000 years after Christ's coming, and premil's rapture is not the the rising of all men. I believe the scriptual support for our belief is simple, II Peter 3:10. I don't know how premil will can reconcile their problems while remain faithful to II Peter 3:10.

Regards,

Xu

The reason why the creed is consistent with premillenial interpretation is that the creed does not say that the last judgment immediately follows Christ's coming. The word simply isn't there. Furthermore, it does not tell us which coming of Christ is connected with the judgment. When you add these two factors together, a premillenial interpretation is clearly consistent with the creed.

YXU:

I didn't look at that other thread. Nor am I a Pre-millennialist. I think that I'm beginning to understand what you're saying.

You're not the first, nor likely the last, to see peculiarities in others' views on things. I have a few such notions myself. But maybe you don't know about some of the things that we have grown to take for granted. The millennium is an example of one such thing.

First, I would tend to agree that Pre-millennialists appear to be making a mistake. But I don't know their view that well. I tend towards the Amillennial view, but I've learned to be more careful about saying that I'm an Amillennialist. Some think that this means that I subconsciously read Amillennialism into every text that I read, and that's hardly the case. I know how to read the Bible, and I wouldn't do such a thing.

In the same way, I think it is fair to assume that the sensible Pre-millennialist does not presume his millennial view into every text that he reads from the Bible, but is willing to let the Spirit lead him into understanding, his own notions notwithstanding. And in so doing he has come to think that Pre-millennialism is the right view. Well, I think he's wrong, but that's just my thinking. I have to understand that that is all it is, my understanding.

Just because he comes to a different millennnial view doesn't necessarily mean that he's denying any part of the Athanasian Creed. He may understand it differently than you, and you have to try to understand how he comes to that before you can criticize him. And even then, this is about something that is not very important in the Reformed framework.

It comes at the end of doing theology, not at the beginning, so if he makes a mistake here it really doesn't effect anything that comes before it. So it has been a careful judgment in the Reformed circles not to pass judgment on anyone for his millennial views. When someone intentionally puts it before some more basic tenet of the faith, then there is a problem. And you might be thinking of it in those terms. You have to understand that well-grounded Pre-millennialists don't do this, and if they do it is not that they meant to do it. It could well be that I am making this mistake myself without knowing it. We've always kept a careful distance between personal views on such things and the more basic things about which we should all agree.

Does that help?

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

The reason why the creed is consistent with premillenial interpretation is that the creed does not say that the last judgment immediately follows Christ's coming. The word simply isn't there. Furthermore, it does not tell us which coming of Christ is connected with the judgment. When you add these two factors together, a premillenial interpretation is clearly consistent with the creed.

And the reason why such an interpretation is reasonable is that after the period in which the Creed was written a vast portion of the Church, if not the majority, was Premillennial. That does not make them right (no majority votes here), but since no one stood up and said: "Hey, you Chilliasts, I understand that a bunch of you are Church Fathers and all, but can't you read the Anathansian Creed? Better repent or face hellfire."

XYU,
I was originally taught that the premillenial dispensational view was the only correct view of endtimes, as a young Christian. It took quite awhile to just learn that view,working through Things To Come by Dwight Pentecost,looking up all the verses, reading commentaries by other premill writers,listening to dozens of Dallas Theological Seminary tapes etc.
I am thankful for many things I learned by those times of study,by many of those men who were godly men. Despite the error, I was still a believer then.
The blood of Christ has cleansed me of all sin.
As I am now thankful that God has providentially used other believer's to challenge my understanding of those issues.
I am now somewhere between Amill/Postmill. I think of it as Postamillenial
XYU, I said that to say this. Jesus saves sinners. Many of these who are saved are discipled by others who might have several areas of defective theology. God used other believer's to help correct by scripture, good books, tapes, etc.
If someone is holding onto the pre-mill idea, let him or her articulate what they want, then offer scriptural correction
With the state of the church in the world today, it is most likely that many Christians do not hold anything close to a solid view of endtimes.
Thankfully they all agree that there is a second coming,and judgement day.

Originally Posted by mangum

Brethren,

I believe brother YXU has a language barrier. English is not his native language.

Maybe some patience with him is in order?

I was about to make the same observation.

I believe that a modicum of patience is warranted.

I am very thankful that YXU took my above post the way it was intended. I certainly didn't intend to be ungracious or impatient with him. I just wanted to share with him what I had to learn before the PB ever really made sense to me. There were some things that I came to find out that I disagreed with many individuals about on the PB. And I voiced my thoughts on some of these things, and not always in the right way. I regret some of the posts that I have made in the past because of my hastiness. I just wanted to make sure YXU took his time with how he voiced his differences. That's why I pointed him to the verse in his signature line. It wasn't because I thought he was being mean spirited about anything.

I pray YXU finds the answers he is looking for.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Most participants here are aware where they part from the Confessions and are respectful enough to keep their opinions to themselves where it would be extremely disruptive. This is one reason why we permit certain exceptions on a case by case basis.

And we're thankful for the exceptions, Rich. There was much about confessionalism that I failed to understand when I became a member of the PB almost four years ago, but I'm thankful that I was shown grace and patience and have come to learn much about Reformed theology through my interaction here.

Your above statement about knowing when to keep our opinions to ourselves is kind of like if you want to tell me my car is ugly then go ahead and bring it up. We can discuss that in a civil manner. But if you want to tell me my kids are ugly that is probably best left unsaid.

I suspect that this is an area of great interest to our questioning brother. If he has written on this, under the care of Dr. Pipa, I would be most interested in reading such a paper. I hope that the intentions are to advance the Kingdom and to lift up Jesus Christ.