Those familiar with the controversy surrounding Covenant Eschatology know well that Dominionists such as Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry and others have pointed an accusing finger at preterists for being “non-creedal” and out of step with the church’s doctrinal stand in history. See my discussion of the creeds in my The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat, as well as my forthcoming new book AD 70 A Shadow of the “Real” End? Available soon!
As I noted in the first installment, I freely admit that I am not orthodox, as defined by the modern Reformers, and make no apology for it. Of course, the irony of the modern Reformed orthodoxy is that it was declared heretical by the ‘orthodoxy” that had stood for 1000 years!
“Orthodoxy” as we know it today was created by man, and has been wrongly imposed through the creeds and confessions, with resultant Inquistions, ostracism, etc.. Those who claim to be Reformed and creedal are some of the worst when it comes to this kind of attitude and action. Personally I will take my stand on scripture and scripture alone. It is patently, irrefutably true that the creeds the contradict scriptures. It is far past time for those who claim to be “Reformed” to take that cry of Sola Scriptura seriously.
The interesting thing is that for all of their appeal to the creeds and church history, what the Dominionists do not tell their listening / reading audience is that they are themselves stridently accused of being non-creedal, anti-creedal, non-historical, and heretical! I begin with this article sharing with our visitors an article written by a Reformed Amillennial professor. Make no mistake, he clearly believes full preterism is heretical. The reason I am sharing his article (via a series of shorter articles) is to show the inconsistency of the Dominionists when they point the accusing finger at preterists and cry “Non-creedal!” I hope the readers will see the tremendous irony here, and think seriously about it.
The creeds are explicitly amillennial. The creeds leave no room for postmillennialism or premillennial-dispensationalism. No appeal can be made to the Reformed creeds in support of either of these heretical millennial positions. More than that, the Reformed creeds expressly repudiate the major tenets of both postmillennialism and premillennial-dispensationalism. On the basis of the creeds these teachings are judged as heretical. Those who hold to these teachings embrace false doctrine.
The amillennial character of the Reformed creeds is challenged today. There are those who contend that the creeds are largely silent on the matter of the millennium. Their view is that the Reformed creeds leave the issue of the millennium an open question. They go on to encourage toleration of the variant millennial views in the church. It is argued that one can be a postmillennialist or even a premillennialist and still subscribe to the Reformed creeds.
But this is not honesty to the Reformed creeds. Spokesmen for both the postmillennial and the premillennial-dispensational schools of thought of a former generation conceded this. Dr. John F. Walvoord, one of the most well known dispensationalists of recent time, wrote: “Reformed eschatology has been predominantly amillennial. Most if not all of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were amillennial in their eschatology…” (Biblio-theca Sacra, January-March, 1951).
Samuel G. Craig, writing the biography of Benjamin B. Warfield included in Warfield’s Biblical And Theological Studies, states:
Many, perhaps most, Calvinists, not to mention evangelicals other than Reformed, do not share Warfield’s post-millennialism. Both of his great Calvinistic contemporaries, Kuyper and Bavinck, for instance, were amillennialists, as was his esteemed colleague, Gerhardus Vos, perhaps the most erudite advocate of amillennialism in America. He himself freely admitted that amillennialism, though not known in those days under that name, is the historic Protestant view, as expressed in the creeds of the Reformation period including the Westminster Standards (p. xxxix).
It is the purpose of this article briefly to demonstrate how incompatible postmillennialism and premillennial-dispensationalism are with the Reformed creeds. Our concern will be with the Three Forms of Unity, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession of Faith in particular. Part Two To here– 3-5-13✔
2 Replies to “Postmillennialism, The Creeds and Being Reformed #2”
December 13, 2012 8:08 pm by Ken Palmer Hey Tom,Thanks for your reply, however, all of the sttenmaets I have made are true based on my experience. Since you haven’t addressed my concerns, then you are not grouped in with those full preterist that have shied away in silence, and those that have (which are none) addressed them, yet. Many full preterists, are not all, which would include you, as not part of the many, but the other percentage that would make up “all” a word which I did not use. Partial Preterism was annexed by full preterists to differentiate their preterism from historic preterism, which was defined in the 12th century as to pertaining “most” of Revelation being fulfilled. We can exchange sources here, but I am sure you are familiar with the sequence of events the Pope took with two of his scholars in the clergy to investigate the claims that were being made during the 14th century by the Reformation. Preterism is also seen as far back as the 3rd century with Eusebius, but we must also take his theology into account in that he also agrees with the basic fundamentals as Luis de Alcazar hundreds of years later when the first exposition of preterism hit the press. In reality, full preterism is not preterism. Full preterism describes that it has gone fully past the original intent and definition of preterism as it is historically exposited, understood and labeled. As far as my last sttenmaets and your rebuttal to them, we can discuss the historically inept part, but based on this last “interwebsite” interaction I have had with Mr. Bell, of course I “opinionatingly” generalized, and his ability to read a simple spreadsheet, is nonetheless administratively inefficient.I hope that has cleared things up a bit! I am looking forward to you addressing the matter of 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1 Cor 15:37-38 and their theo-historic interpretation that was unanimously accepted by the early church.Ken
Comments are closed.