Dr. Sam Waldron has proposed a new series of blog entries entitled, "Unfinished Business on Horner, Swanson, and Historic Premillennialism" on the Midwest Center for Theological Studies Blog. I'm not entirely certain how I possibly deserve so much attention, but will do my best to keep up with the discussion.
Not to make advance excuses, but I did just learn last week that I am going to be traveling to Italy to teach a course in Church History from the Early Church Through the Reformation to students at the Italian Theological Academy and I'm a tad behind on preparing and that preparation must needs taken priority over any other task if push comes to shove as the saying goes. It should be a great trip and ministry and I've got an entire three weeks to prepare.
In the introductory entry on this Dr. Waldron makes the statement:
Here I am affirming that the views of these men (Spurgeon et al) are not typical of Historic Premillennialism. They are, of course, typical in one respect. As Swanson shows, Spurgeon definitely and emphatically rejected the division between the Church and Israel postulated by Dispensationalism. Although I am going on my general knowledge of their theology, I suppose that so also did Bonar and Ryle. This rejection of the church/Israel distinction is the distinguishing difference between Historic and Dispensational Premillennialism.
To be of some assistance, while I don't have any material from the Bonar brothers here in the home office; I do have a helpful volume entitled, Premillennial Essays of the Prophetic Conference Held in the Church of the Holy Trinity, New York City, With an Appendix of Critical Testimonies by Nathaniel West (West also edited the volume). In the introduction West points to a helpful work by J. C. Ryle first published in 1869 entitled, Coming Events and Present Duties. In the preface of that work Canon Ryle (he would become Bishop subsequently) presented a nine point statement of the premillennial faith which he affirmed. In point #7 he stated:
I believe that the Jews shall be ultimately gathered again, as a separate nation, restored to their own law, and converted to the faith of Christ. Jer.30 :10, 11; 31 :10; Rom.11 :25-26.
He concluded the preface by stating, "I believe, finally, that it is for the safety, happiness, and comfort, of all true Christians to expect as little as possible from churches, or governments, under the present dispensation, to hold themselves ready for tremendous conversions and changes of all things established, and to expect their good things only from Christ’s Second Advent." The role and nature of the future conversion and national restoration is a common theme in the essays in the aforementioned work by West. It should also be noted that the early Prophetic Conferences, like this one, were not Dispensational meetings; in fact, the introduction of Dispensationalism and the Pre-Tribulational Rapture (as opposed to a post-tribulational rapture as normally taught by Historic Premillennialists) led to a significant split within the Prophetic Conference movement. George Ladd details this history nicely in The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and The Rapture (Eerdman's, 1956).
I would commend West's chapter in first book I listed, on the History of the Pre-Millennial Doctrine. There is much work here and a thorough historical examination. Of interest is his development and assertion that the Westminster Confession is at its heart a premillennial document. Secondly, at the end of his essay he lists the leading premillennial scholars and writers of his day. In that list he includes the Bonar brothers, and J. C. Ryle (in another work of a similar sort he lists Spurgeon as well). If, as Waldron seems to be suggesting, these individuals were out of the mainstream of Premillennial thought, West gives no indication of it at any level. The fact that Ryle's seven point statement is used as a focal and starting point for the book (with no disclaimer on any point), is an important statement as well.
While we wait with anticipation for the continuation of the discussion by Dr. Waldron I do have one pre-emptive question that I trust he will address. Several times he has referred to the position Spurgeon, Ryle, Bonar, and others as a "mediating position," that is, something between Historic Premillennialism (as he, I think mistakenly understands it) and Dispensational Premillennialism. My problem with this terminology is that ca. 1870; Dispensationalism, while gaining in popularity, was not that well known and the debates within Premillennialism had not yet begun in earnest. With Spurgeon, Ryle, the Bonar's (and others we will certainly mention in subsequent entries) delineating their views about a future for Israel as a nation (and large scale conversions) well before the debate begins, it seems dubious to call it a "mediating" position. No need for mediation had yet presented itself.
Well, we shall see, Millenarismus Quondam Iterum (loosely, views of the millennium once again).
Posted by Narnia3 at May 21, 2008 6:43 PM | TrackBack