Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Riddleblog

I have added a new blog to my bloglist on the right. Tis The Riddleblog: Devoted to Reformed Theology and Eschatology.

Lots of cool stuff, mostly from an Ammillenial position, which is of course, the Reformed Eschatological position. :)

10 comments:

Integrity said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BJ said...

How many times do we have to go through this?!!!!! All the heavy hitters in Church history were POST MILLENIALIST!!!!!! but go ahead...be pessimistic all you want. As for me and my house, we believe that the Fathe will smite down the nations with the Gospel (Rev.19)and make those nations a footstool for His Son...Just as He promised (Hebrews 10)!!!!!!!!

Russ said...

BJ,

I totally agree. (Except the part about all the heavy hitters being postmill.) For example, heavy hitters who were amill: Jesus, The Apostle Paul, John, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

BJ said...

If Jesus has an eschatological position it would be Post! That is to say, He would return after the nations have been beat down by the Gospel and made footstool. How can you agree with that and say you are an Amill? Ask yourself this question, which as I see it is the only question one should ask concerning eschatological issues.
What did Jesus expect to see happen when He sat down at His fathers right hand? Solve this Riddle and you have the position of Christ.

Russ said...

BJ,

I'm not interested in debating this right now, so I will be brief.

I don't believe our difference is what happens when Jesus sits down at the Father's right hand, but when it happens, how it happens, and what leads up to it. I do not disagree with 1 Cor 15:23-24. (And I do not think the word "until" is a reference to the beginning of the golden age.) I believe the kingdom does advance throughout this age, but the final victory is won by Jesus himself at his second coming. Not before as you seem to be saying. Even though the Kingdom has been inaugurated, as Jesus said, His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36) I also see Revelations 19 as Jesus’ return in wrath at his second coming to judge the nations, raise the dead, and make all things new. Come-on.

Our difference is the Postmillenial insistence on a "Golden Age" that exists here on Earth, before Christ's return. Do you agree with that?

For some historical reformed perspective, here is one.

"We condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matthew 24 and 25, and Luke 18, and apostolic teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2, and 2 Timothy 3 and 4, present something quite different" (The Second Helvetic Confession, ch. 11).

This reformation document is from 1566.

I find the New Testament's silence on this golden age fairly conclusive that the apostles did not share the Postmillenial understanding. Either that, or they were compeletely silent about it. I'm open to persuasion though, from the text.

This was longer than I intended. Feel free to have the last word...for now.

Russ said...

Revelation. (No s)

Russ said...

Here is some further information about the 2nd Helvetic Confession, which I quoted above.

Bullinger initially composed this Confession in 1561 for his own use 'as an abiding testimony of the faith in which he had lived and in which he wished to die'. But events led to its publication and ultimate adoption as the Swiss national Confession. Besides the Swiss Cantons in whose name it was first issued in 1566, the Reformed Churches of France (1571), Hungary (1567), Poland (1571) and Scotland (1566) gave it their sanction. In Holland and England it was also well received. Cochrane informs us that it remains the official statement in most of the Reformed Churches of Eastern Europe and in the Hungarian Reformed Church in America.

The document substantially follows the same order of topics as the First Helvetic Confession but is a decided improvement on that Confession in both form and matter. Schaff's comment is worthy of note: 'It is Scriptural and catholic, wise and judicious, full and elaborate, yet simple and clear, uncompromising towards the errors of Rome, and moderate in its dissent from Lutheran dogmas ('Creeds of Christendom',Vol. I, p.394).

In reference to Chapter Eleven of the Second Helvetic Confession, Berkhof states that it is 'the most complete official deliverance on the Reformed position with respect to the doctrine of Christ' (The History of Christian Doctrines, p 116). It is therefore a chapter well worthy of our attention and a careful study of it will not go unrewarded.

Dr. Charles Hodge's words of commendation are a fitting conclusion: 'The Second Helvetic Confession is on some accounts to be regarded as the most authoritative symbol of the Reformed Church, as it was more generally received than any other'. (Systematic Theology, Vol. III, p.634).


All quotes are from this article.

http://www.pcea.asn.au/bullingr.html

Josh Brisby said...

I think we need to be fair, though, and admit that amillennialism is not "the" Reformed eschatology. Reformed theology has never been monolithic in eschatology. There have been Reformed people who were historic premils (John Gill, Charles Spurgeon), some who have been amil (Vos, Bavinck, Waldron, Berkhof), and some who have been postmil (Bahnsen, Gentry, Edwards, Calvin, Mathison, Sproul, and the majority of the Puritans). So, no matter what we believe about eschatology, it's important that we admit this.

As for me, I just can't get past Romans 11. I think it clearly seems to say that God has temporarily cast aside Israel so that the gospel would conquer the nations, and then Israel will respond, and then an even greater host of conversions. John Murray became postmil from reading this text, and this is my story as well.

In Christ,
Josh Brisby

Josh Brisby said...

P.S.,

And, although Charles Hodge approved of the 2nd Helvetic, he himself (as well as A.A. Hodge) was postmil.

Josh

Russ said...

Good to hear from you Josh.

You are of course correct that Reformed Eschatology is not monolithic. The statement about the Amill position being *the* reformed position was meant to be tongue in cheek, at least from me it was, I can't speak for Mr. Riddlebarger!

Hope the family and your new little girl are doing great.

Russ

Blog Archive