In this discussion I've alluded several times to the premillennialism of the English Puritans. One of the sources on this is Robert Baillie. Baillie was one of the Scottish representatives to the Westminster Assembly and the Principle of Glasgow University. In the three volume compilation, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie (edited from the authors manuscripts). [Edinburgh, Printed for Robert Ogle, 1841], Baillie writes extensively on his observations of the Assembly proceedings.
In one of those letters, addressed to William Spang (1607-64) a noted Scottish minister and Baillie's cousin, Baillie makes a statement about the eschatological beliefs of the Westminster Divines. It is in the context of commenting on a new book by Dr. John Forbes (1593-1648), Instructiones Historico-Theologicae (Amsterdam, 1645); that Spang had sent to Baillie. Forbes was the first Professor of Divinity at King's College and has been called, "one of the greatest patristic scholars and theologians Scotland has produced" (Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, IVP, 1993. p. 328).
Here is the quote from Baillie in full (I have updated the English spelling to make it a little more readable):
Send me the rest of Forbes : I like the book very well, and the man much the better for the book's cause. I marvel I can find nothing in its index against the Millenaries : I cannot think the author a Millenarie. I cannot dream why he should have omitted an error so famous in antiquity, and so troublesome among us ; for the most of the chief divines here, not only Independents, but others such as Twisse, Marshall, Palmer, and many more, are express Chiliasts. It's needful, if his judgment be right, that he should amend that omission, by an express and large Appendix (Baillie, Journals and Letters, 2:313; letter dated Sept 5, 1645).
The first individual he names as a Millenairie or premillennialist is William Twisse. Twisse was the Prolocutor or Moderator of the Westminster Assembly and gave leadership to the entire work. Twisse's Premillennialism is well noted. He wrote the preface to the English edition of Joseph Mede's important work, Clavis Apocalyptica (Key to Revelation) and he and Mede were regular correspondents. Additionally, important to this discussion, both believed in the future national conversion and territorial restoration of Israel.
The others are Stephen Marshall and Herbert Palmer; men of considerable importance in the Assembly's work. Marshall, in particular is noteworthy, in that he was one of the leading writers for The Directory of Public Worship; and specifically his writing on Expository Preaching, called by Sinclair Ferguson, "the finest brief description of expository preaching to be found in the English language" (Scottish Dict, p. 864).
The quote by Baillie is significant in a couple of regards. It seems that he regarded the fact that the Independents (mainly Thomas Goodwin [1600-80]), would be premillennial as almost a "given;" which in the case of Goodwin was true. Baillie admired the Independents learning and godliness, but rails against them, especially Goodwin, on their opposition to Presbyterianism and their views on "liberty of conscience" in regards to religious expression. Baillie is also astonished that so many of the English Puritans were premillennial as well. Interestingly he wanted Forbes to write an "express and large Appendix" against premillennialism as long as "his judgment be right." I can't answer Baillie’s question as to whether or not Forbes was also premillennial; his work is only available in Latin and plowing through a lot of pages in Latin is not high on my list of things to do at the moment. I do know that Forbes refused to sign the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 and was forced into exile.
The question surrounding all of this is simply this. Given the premillennial positions of the leader of the Assembly, two named influential individuals, the Independents, and the "many more" who were express Chilaists (there were 151 members of the assembly); is it likely that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the other documents produced by the Assembly could possibly be "anti-premillennial"? Or, is it, as Nathaniel West stated, "a premillennial document" at its core. Given the significant influence of the WCF on other confessions, like both London Baptist Confessions, this is an interesting question.
Baillie's quote also helps establish the fact that Premillennialism was a significant force within English Puritanism in the 1600's.
In his interaction with Barry Horner (Future Israel) and my ETS Paper of 1999, "Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel: A Non-Dispensational Perspective on a Literal National Restoration." Dr. Waldron has seemed to misunderstand my responses to his Blog. Recently he stated:
I sense in all this interaction that Swanson and Horner do not agree about what counts as “judeocentic” eschatology. Horner rejects Justin and Ladd as supercessionist. Swanson seems desirous of claiming them.
To briefly repeat the background, Dr. Waldron has asserted really just one main point; that is, the Historic Premillennialism of Charles Spurgeon, J. C. Ryle, the Bonar’s (Andrew, Horatius and James); which affirms a national future in Palestine for the nation of Israel, is a "mediating position" or a position which is not in the mainstream of the Historic Premillennial position. To that end he put forward Justin Martyr and George Eldon Ladd as the "two premier representatives" of Historic Premillennialism in his view. Waldron then claimed that neither of them believed in a future territorial restoration of Israel. I pointed out, with a couple of quotations from each, that Waldon's conclusions here were perhaps not as solid as he would have liked. Ladd, particularly, at least held out the possibility of a territorial restoration. Waldron ultimately stated that:
I conclude that my statements about Ladd and possibly Justin were not sufficiently nuanced. Ladd in particular thought that it was “possible” that the Jews restored to the land might become a Christian nation. I continue, however, to maintain (with Barry Horner) that Ladd and Justin Martyr were not (to use Horner’s term) “judeocentric” in their eschatology.
This brings us up to date. Waldron's problem on the point of "judeocentric" is perhaps based on my lack of clarity in this discussion, so let me re-state myself.
In relation to Martyr and Ladd the point I was making was not that they were "judeocentric" in their eschatology (I stated earlier that this would be a fool's errand); but rather I was arguing against what I continue to view as Waldron's misunderstanding of Historic Premillennialism in relation to a territorial restoration of Israel. Waldron would like to see HP devoid of any notion of a territorial future for Israel (he also no longer accepts a "national conversion" of Israel in the end times). However, what I have been attempting to demonstrate from several angles is that a territorial restoration of Israel has a rather long history and is well-embedded within the HP tradition. Ergo, the beliefs of Spurgeon, Ryle, and the Bonar's on this point is not an aberration but within the mainstream of HP belief.
The misunderstanding may also come from an assumption that I have been arguing an affirmation of Dispensational Premillennialism on the part of these individuals. Again, as I previously stated, nothing could be further from the truth. None of them were Dispensational. I noted that Spurgeon spoke against the key tenets of Dispensational Theology (which Waldron acknowledged).
The significant difference between Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism is "the nature of the millennial kingdom." That is, the millennium the culminating period of time on earth for the Church (Historic Premillennialism)? or The Nation of Israel (Dispensational Premillennialism)? The Dispensational view is that the millennium is "Judeocentric;" that is, this time is the fulfillment of God's Old Testament promises to Israel, particularly in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. Christ rules personally as king in Jerusalem over the world and the Nation of Israel is pre-eminent. Historic Premillennialism sees the millennium as the culmination of the Church Age with Jesus personally reigning as King in Jerusalem over the world and the church is pre-eminent.
Where Waldron seems confused is that within Historic Premillennialism there is absolutely no inconsistency in seeing the Jewish people restored to their land as a nation and nationally converted to Christ and the Gospel. Israel will be, as Ladd hints at, "a truly Christian nation." They will be one of the many nations on earth. Affirming such a position does not make one "judeocentric." As one person mentioned to me, it apparently makes some Covenantalists uncomfortable to have any overlap in eschatological beliefs with Dispensationalism. Biblically and exegetically I can understand a lot of the differences; but this recent movement to deny a future national conversion of Israel and a future territorial restoration of Israel, I find to be exceptionally odd and a little troubling.
Here I agree entirely with Horner, it is a form of anti-semiticism; not a violent or persecuting one, but it is a reality nonetheless. It is a position which, to quote Charles Hodge again, is out of accord with, "the common faith of the church."
As to the view that Horner and I differ on what "judeocentric" is; I've read his book about four times and I don't see where we differ in the sightest. Waldron again stated, "Horner rejects Justin and Ladd as supercessionist. Swanson seems desirous of claiming them." This is not the point at all. I am "claiming" Justin Martyr and George Ladd as affirming, or at least allowing for, what is a traditional Historic Premillennial position, the national conversion and territorial restoration of Israel in the millennium. They are still both supercessionist (the view that the Church replaces Israel). The idea of supercessionism is much more nuanced than Waldron seems willing to allow for (see my friend and colleague Dr. Michael Vlach's work on this at his Theological Studies page; and more recently in his article in The Master's Seminary Journal, "Rejection Then Hope: The Church's Doctrine of Israel in the Patristic Era" 19:1 [Spring 2008], 51-70) for further detailed studies on this issue.
To summarize my points on this long discussion:
I look forward to the continued interaction and trust I have been able to bring a level of clarity to my position on these points. I am also anxious for interaction and any possible correction to some of the historical points I have put forward.
Update at 5pm: A Couple more personnel moves by the Dodgers:
This means Nomar's career with the Dodgers is essentially done. Jones will have surgery on his knee Tuesday and will be out four to six weeks (estimated). But if he doesn't work any harder than he appears to have in his conditioning so far he may be out until July. Tiffee is the best hitter at AAA and hitting .422 at that level with nearly 200 at bats is impressive. He can play third base and first base, so I'm not entirely sure what they are going to do with him.
The Dodgers also announced that Rafael Furcal will not make the trip to Chicago starting Monday.
Update at 1pm: The Dodgers made the following player moves:
Now to what I wrote a couple of hours earlier:
The Dodgers have decided to call up Clayton Kershaw from AA Jacksonville for tomorrows game against the Cardinals. Kershaw is ranked by about everyone as the top pitching prospect in the minor leagues. He's 20 years old, throws consistently in the middle to high 90's and apparently will have the best curve ball in the major leagues as soon as he arrives. Plus he's left handed, filling a notable lack in the Dodgers rotation.
The Dodgers have been very careful with him. He was sent to AA despite the fact he might have been their best pitcher in Spring Training. They have limited his work at Jacksonville (in fact he was pulled after one inning the other day, which essentially turned his start to an off day workout so he would be ready for Sunday). It seemed clear he was going to be called up, the Dodgers starting pitching has not been strong (Penny and Lowe have got to get it together soon) and the 5th spot has been a disaster again this year. They moved Billingsley back a day to open the Cubs series in Chicago (keeping a rookie pitcher making his first start away from Wrigley is a good thing). They have also avoided an unnecessary stop in AAA Las Vegas for him. The PCL is a terrible pitcher's league. Almost all of the stadiums are built for hitters. There is no sense in sending him there, he probably would do nothing but develop some bad habits.
Rafael Furcal perhaps will play Sunday (day game where it will be a little warmer, last night was cold and rainy and tonight will be about the same). The fate of Andruw Jones was supposed to be settled yesterday (continue to play or have his knee scoped now) but nothing was announced and he didn't play. If he goes to the DL, which seems likely, then the Dodgers will either just activate Furcal and go with just three regular outfielders, or they could recall Jason Repko and send Maza back out. Hu can continue to play short or second, fielding great, but hitting terribly. He could be sent out, since Maza can play more positions and Hu is not ready (and I'm not sure he ever will be) for major league pitching. I think once Furcal is back though Maza should be sent out and Repko should replace Jones.
With Blake DeWitt now not only holding his own, but probably the leading candidate for the National League Rookie of the Year; the Dodgers should get Andy LaRoche some work at second base. Jeff Kent is playing terribly right now. He's dropped 80 points on his average, he can't cover any ground at second base and I've noticed a couple of times recently that his base running is very tentative (I really wonder if he's injured). LaRoche is ready to hit in the majors and if he can play third base, he can play second base; or at least couldn't be any worse than Kent is as a fielder. If he shows anything at second base, then bring him up and send Hu down until they can package a deal to trade Delwyn Young. Young may be a good hitter but he has no position and I don't see any future with the Dodgers for him. Young is out of options, so if they send him down they'll lose him and get nothing.
Nomar looks like he's completely done. His recovery from his latest injury is essentially stopped and there is no estimate when he'll be back. Tony Abreu is still young, but his injury (like Repko's last year) looks like a season long deal, and personally I like the idea of LaRoche at second base better than Abreu there and losing LaRoche. Jason Schmidt is slowly coming around and he was moved to the 60 day DL retroactive to the beginning of the season, so he could be about 2-3 weeks away from coming back.
Oh, who will the Dodgers move to make room for Kershaw? My guess is Chan Ho Park is the odd man out.
Dr. Waldron in his latest entry has returned to Charles Spurgeon. He brings up the point that Iain Murray in his work The Puritan Hope examines Spurgeon's eschatology in some depth. Waldron states,
Murray shows, I think, that there are very real tensions in Spurgeon’s utterances on the matter of eschatology. These tensions are very difficult to understand coherently. Murray also shows that Spurgeon was not so confident about his eschatology as Swanson might leave one to think.
Well, Murray does assert that Spurgeon had a, "fundamental uncertainty in his mind" in relation to eschatology. He bases this almost entirely on Spurgeon's supposedly "disclaimers" in several sermons where he makes statements such as, "I shall not go into any details about when he [Christ] will come; I will not espouse the cause of the pre-millennial or the post-millennial advent" (MTP 27:390-91). However, I demonstrated (and even Peter Master's, no friend of a premillennial position, concurred) that these types of statements were an idiomic expression with Spurgeon whereby he was stating that essentially he was not going on a "bunny trail" that would divert from the main point of his sermon. I had a chat with Murray ( I had sent him a copy of my work, as he had been very generous in his correspondence with me) many years ago and he admitted to me in the conversation that I was "probably correct" in my reading of Spurgeon.
Beyond this I wrote what many correspondents in the last 15 years have concluded is the definitive work on Spurgeon's view of the millennium. Bob Ross, the owner of Pilgrim Publications, the great reprinter of Spurgeon's sermons and other writings refers to it as "the major work." It is located here at Phil Johnson's Spurgeon Archive Spurgeon Archive. It is also available here in PDF form on my Essay Page. Everyone can read it for themselves and judge the evidence I have assembled and if am correct in my assertions and complete confidence in Spurgeon's Premillennialism and his unshaking commitment to that position. One little aside, Phil Johnson told me a few years ago that this work is the most viewed article in the Spurgeon Archive.
Waldon states that he agrees with an unknown correspondent that I am guilty of "selectively using Spurgeon" and questions two previously discussed quotations. In the summary of the paper, Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel: A Non-Dispensational Perspective on a Literal National Restoration I stated that Spurgeon believed that, "if the temple itself be not restored, yet on Zion's hill shall be raised some Christian building" (NPSP 1:213-14). This language seems more that clear. Also, I stated that Spurgeon believed that, "There may be even in that period [the millennium] certain solemn assemblies and Sabbath-days, but they will not be of the same kind as we have now" (MTP 10:439). Waldron only deals with the "ceremony" quote and proposes an understanding of what Spurgeon stated, that honestly, I simply do not understand in light of what appears to be another very clear statement.
It is clear to me what Spurgeon is asserting in this quotation. It's meaning was also apparently evident to Dr. Peter Masters, who in his work, "Spurgeon's Eschatology" (Sword and Trowel, Dec 1989, p. 30) used the larger quotation but actually eliminated the entire phrase about "ceremonies" with absolutely no indication that he had edited the quote; what another writer called an intentional, "manipulation of the quotation to his own end" (C. W. H. Griffiths, "Spurgeon's Eschatology" in Watching and Waiting 23:15 Jul-Sept, 1990). In the context of Masters' article the inclusion of that part of the quotation would have completely undone his thesis.
Spurgeon not only made multiple dozen postive statement affirming the premillennial position (as well as a national conversion and national restoration to their land); he also made explicit negative statements about post-millennialism and amillennialism. In commenting on Albert Barnes' amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20, Spurgeon stated, "Now I appeal to you, would you, in reading that passage, think this to be the meaning? Would any man believe that to be its meaning, if he had not some thesis to defend?" (MTP 7:346).
Coming next, a discussion of the idea of Waldron that Barry Horner and I have divergent views about "judeocentricity."
Dr. Waldron in his second blog entry in the "Unfinished Business on Horner, Swanson, and Historic Premillennialism" has apparently begun to re-assert his position that the Premillennialism of Spurgeon, Ryle and the Bonar’s:
. . .form an interesting transitional or mediating viewpoint between Historic Premillennialism and Dispensationalism. Here I am affirming that the views of these men (Spurgeon et al) are not typical of Historic Premillennialism. (as re-stated in part one of his new series of entries).
The immediate question at hand was whether or not Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) and George Eldon Ladd (1911-82) in their expressions of Historic Premillennialism allowed for a return of Israel to the territorial homeland in relation to the millennial kingdom. Waldron originally made the points that, "they not only accepted the idea of the church as the new Israel at the same time, but also rejected the idea that there was a territorial future for national Israel in the promised land." In a previous entry here I tried to demonstrate that this was not so clearly the case and provided some quotes from both to demonstrate that. Now, I was not dogmatic on either and particularly couched my conclusion on Ladd by saying, "In his writings Ladd is never definitive." Waldron concludes that:
I conclude that my statements about Ladd and possibly Justin were not sufficiently nuanced. Ladd in particular thought that it was “possible” that the Jews restored to the land might become a Christian nation. I continue, however, to maintain (with Barry Horner) that Ladd and Justin Martyr were not (to use Horner’s term) “judeocentric” in their eschatology.
And with that assessment I would entirely agree and I don't think anywhere I pretended to assert that either were "judeocentric" (which particuarly in the case of Justin Martyr would have been a fool's errand).
Now, lest it be forgotten, I am of the Dispensational Premillennial postition myself, not the Historic Premillennialism that I have been discussing (although it would certainly be my second choice eschatologically speaking). Waldron, however, has attempted to make the point that traditional Historic Premillennialism in its classic or majority statements (At this point I'm not sure which he is arguing for, perhaps both) did not believe in a future restoration of Israel to it's land. He also makes the point that the views of Spurgeon, Ryle, the Bonar’s, et al, were a "mediating position" between Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism. In our last entry I presented a few points that I think speak against this idea and here I'd like to present a few additional ones.
A weak point from silence, but still a point, I think is that in the traditional Historic Premillennial position there is seen a "national conversion of Israel." This view is not only prevelant (if not dominant) in Historic Premillennialism; but also in Amillennialism (as Waldron admitted he had followed John Murray at one time in this belief); and also Classic Post-Millennialism. I noted previously that Charles Hodge called the future national conversion of Israel a doctrine that is "according to the common faith of the Church" (Systematic Theology 3:805). For Hodge, the "common faith of the church" seems to mean either in accordance with the Westminster Standards or the larger sphere of all the orthodox creeds of Church history. My point from silence is that when a "national conversion" of Israel is spoken of it may go without saying that the same Jews will be gathered as a "nation" in a locale. If it speaks of Jews scattered to the four corners of the world coming to Christ in the millennial event; how would such a conversion be recognized apart from the general revival of the time? Even Hodge acknowledged that the Scripture contains, "a promise of the restoration of the Jews as a nation." Again, not a strong or maybe even a compelling argument, but one still worth consideration.
Now, another point I have raised a couple of times that Dr. Waldron has not interacted with yet, is the fact of the "Restoration Movement" in English Puritanism. The Premillennial Faith was largely recovered among the English Protestants and after the Reformation and more specifically the English Puritans.
Here I will recommend three articles, all by N. I. Matar (formerly of the American University of Beirut):
"The Idea of the Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought: Between the Reformation and 1660." Durham University Journal (1985)
"The Idea of the Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought: 1661-1701." Harvard Theological Review 78:1-2 (1985)
“The Controversy Over the Restoration of the Jews: From 1754 Until the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews.” Durham University Journal (1990)
It also goes without saying that neither of the institutions nor their journals would be bastions of Dispensational or even Historic Premillennial thought. Matar also tends to view the Restoration Movement dominantly in political constructs and is a little weak in acknowledging the strength of the underlying theological arguments (although he does not ignore them).
These articles should be read and digested if one is interested in this discussion; but a couple of points from Matar's HTJ article. He states that, "The Restoration would be the sign that God was fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies. Given the high number of non-conformists in this period who favored the Restoration, it is not difficult to see how that "miracle" of the Jews overcoming the Turks and converting to Christianity would have supported their [The English Puritans] religious hope" (p. 125). He points out that men like Joseph Mede (1583-1632) took a "literal approach" to interpreting Biblical prophecy which drove them to not only a national conversion of the Jews but also a return to their land, which Matar earlier called, "the Pauline expectation of the millennial kingdom," centered on the interpretation of Romans 11.
The hope of the Historic Premillennialists here was, as Matar notes, "The Restoration was to advance Christianity, not Judaism, since once the Jews were converted and restored [to their land], their Judaism would have been completely and definitively refuted" (p. 133).
I think the dominant, if not fundamental, position of Historic Premillennialism is that the Jews would not only be converted as a nation, but as a nation they would occupy their land. If nothing else, that position predates John Nelson Darby (1800-82) and the articulation of the Dispensational position, by considerable time and cannot be considered a "mediating position."
A Quick Addendum: In the recommendation of books on eschatology, I would rate Ladd's The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture (Eerdman's 1956) and The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Eerdman's 1974) as front line works. If you want to maintain amillennialism, that's fine; but you'll be hard pressed to convince me you have made a thoroughly studied decision if you haven't read these two works. Likewise, from a Dispenational Premillennial position, Alva McClain's The Greatness of the Kingdom (Moody Press, 1965) needs to be read by anyone who actually wants to understand that position (at least how I, in large part, affirm it).
It is a minor annoyance, but one I can express here (since it's my blog), and it is the innummerable times someone seeking to convince me (and others) of amillennialism by saying, "if you would just read: _____" filling in the blank with Hoekema, or Beale, or Riddlebarger, or even Sam Waldron; "then certainly you would be convinced and abandon your Dispensationalism." I once was standing near Dr. MacArthur, when one such well-meaning gentlemen made such a pitch to him. MacArthur nicely replied that he had, in fact, read each book that this individual recommended. The gentleman walked away and said, "I just don't understand." I've had the same experience and almost invaribly I will ask have they read one of the three works I just noted. And, of course, they haven't; they are not even aware of them.
Now, I know the converse is also true; that there are Dispensationalists and Historic Premillennialists who have not read substantive works in opposition to their belief system. This fact is a disservice to all sides of the debate.
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).
Editorial Note: No I'm not taking performance enhancing substances, for some reason I just hit a bunch of things to blog about roughly at the same time.
As a Dodger fan things are looking really good right now, the team (sans the last couple of games with Furcal out of the lineup) is playing very well and looks like they will compete with Arizona all year (the rest of the National League West being the bottom three teams in Baseball in this week's Power Rankings by ESPN). But there are a few troubling issues that the team really needs to address, and quite soon, if they are going to stay in contention and make the playoffs.
At the top of the list from my view is not Andruw Jones (but don't worry he's right behind). The top issue right now is the back end of the starting rotation. Loaiza is now on the DL and the reports are that the team will promote Clayton Kershaw sometime this week. That can only help. The thing that really killed the Dodger's last year was the four and five spots in the rotation. Right now, it is just the five spot. Billingsley is pitching the best on the staff right now, despite the really odd way Torre used him at the beginning of the season. Penny is a little off, Lowe you just never know from start to start, and Kuroda is demonstrating that he's a number four or five rotation guy (and may turn out to be another bad signing by Colletti). Even if Kershaw has some ups and downs, he is much more likely to keep the team in games than Loaiza. Kuo has been spectacular at times (but actually only against the New York Mets) and he hasn't really shown that he's a regular starter. The Dodgers are getting into the same problem as last year getting too deep, too often into the bullpen.
OK, now for Andruw Jones. We are about a quarter of the way through the season and this may be one of the biggest busts since Barry Zito. Jones is hitting about .170 with 1 home run and 4 rbi's. His mechanics at the plate are simply horrible. He seems to have no pitch recognition at all, he's striking out over 30% of the time and honestly with his current swing mechanics any hit he gets is entirely an accident. He's playing a functional center field (but certainly no better than Matt Kemp or Jason Repko would), but he's a constant inning killer. He's also clearly not in shape (he appears to be at least 30lbs over weight) and his bat speed is significantly slower than in the past.
So what is the answer? Well, they could follow the Padres example and simply release him (like San Diego just did with Jim Edmonds). Release him, recall Jason Repko, move Matt Kemp to center, Ethier in right and rotate Pierre and Repko in left. They could simply bench him and play Ethier (which seems like an easy decision, since Ethier is hitting over .300 with 3 home runs). But then you simply will have an annoyed, unproductive player taking a spot on the roster. They could discover that he's "injured," put him on the DL, work off the weight, work on his mechanics, and rehab him. Lose him for about six weeks and see if he can (or is willing to work) to be salvaged. If he turns around, great he's with the team from July on. If not, cut the loses and release him.
The current strategy of Joe Torre is to just keep playing him. Now perhaps this is being pushed by Colletti (who is on a run of bad to simply terrible signings in the last couple of years), but at some point it has to stop. Torre does favor veterans but Jones can't just be classified as in a slump; he is currently not a major league calibre player. Jones' liability has been highlighted the last few days when Furcal is out of the lineup and Kent has not been hitting. The Dodgers simply cannot carry him in the lineup.
That brings us to the last really big concern. Blake DeWitt is a great story and honestly right now there is no reason to make any changes at third base. I don't like the way Andy LaRoche has been handled by the Dodgers the last two years, but DeWitt has done more than enough to keep his job. That brings us to Nomar Garciaparra. The utter nonsense that Nomar should be given back the starting job when he is "healthy" is beyond belief. He can't help the team, he gets hurt constantly and forces the team to make adjustments. He's in the last half of the last year of his contract. If you can't trade him somewhere he wants, then release him. He presents no value to the team right now. Right now DeWitt is the starter and if his performance at the plate turns out to be a flash in the pan (which I doubt), then LaRoche is certainly ready.
Another "Manifesto" arrived this week by a group seeking to define "Evangelical" and "Evangelicalism." Entitled: Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment. It is the work of a "steering committee" led by Timothy George, Os Guiness, John Huffman, Rich Mouw, Jessie Miranda, David Neff, Richard Orhman, Larry Ross, and Dallas Willard. This group, it would be fair to say, represents the "center-left" or what we might call the "Christianity Today" branch of evangelicalism.
There are a number of signatories from all shades of evangelical thought and there is a online form to add your name to the list. The stated goals of this endeavor are:
The two-fold purpose of this declaration is first to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the United States and much of the Western world today, and second to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.
This "manifesto" is rather long and ponderous (20 pages) and as Alan Jacobs, Professor at Wheaton College notes, it is almost everything a manifesto should not be (this will probably not make his boss, President of Wheaton College, Duane Liftin, happy, since Liftin is one of the signatories). The writers attempt to define "Evangelicals" in the following manner.
Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (Evangelical comes from the Greek word for good news, or gospel.) Believing that the Gospel of Jesus is God’s good news for the whole world, we affirm with the Apostle Paul that we are ―not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation. Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.
To that end the manifesto presents a seven point statement of theological position. The points are a mild recitation of generally agreed upon doctrine, but phrased in the most non-specific terms possible. It is not the worst doctrinal statement I've ever read, but it is remarkable in that it there is not a single citation of Scripture quoted or referenced anywhere (here or in the entire document, except for the oblique reference to Rom 1:16). A glaring omission for a group that wants to be "defined theologically."
The statement on the authority of the Bible is the shortest of the seven; and, contrary to the normal order of a doctrinal statement, it is relegated to the fourth position. It is also notable for not including a reference to inerrancy; the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture being the foundational principle of what has defined evangelical theology for the last 150 years. It is also interesting in that there is no statement at any level regarding the sovereignty of God. Theologically, as the article in the Evangelical Dictionary of the Theology states, evangelicalism "begins with a stress on the sovereignty of God, the transcendent, personal, infinite Being who created and rules over heaven and earth" (p. 406). Regarding God as creator, as one reads carefully, it is clear that one of the goals of the manifesto writers is to put distance between themselves and Young Earth Creationists.
The fifth point, where one might expect a discussion of the importance of evangelism (another foundational principle of Evangelical Theology) there is nothing but a sort of call to social action and justice, "always reaching out as he did to those who are lost as well as to the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow-creatures." The only mention of evangelism is in the last point, and there it is reduced to a rather weak statement to, "share Christ with those who do not yet know him, inviting people to the ends of the earth and to the end of time to join us as his disciples and followers of his way."
Of course as one reads through the document it becomes clear that what the writers want is to put separation between themselves and two things: (1) Conservative politics for which evangelicalism has been more or less identified with for the last 25 years; and (2) Fundamentalism; although the writers are consternated by the fact that "theologically" they are unable to note any difference between Evangelicalism and what they call Fundamentalism. Clearly the differences between the Manifesto authors and Fundamental Evangelicalism is actually how the systems interact with society: politically, socially, and culturally. Unfortunately, the Manifesto states that this is not what they want to be defined by; but rather, theology. In logic this is called the "Horns of a Dilemma."
The writers take the inane tact of implying the Fundamentalist wing of Evangelicalism (remembering that in terms of theology there is no essential difference) manfiests the same type of errors of "fundamentalism" in other religions; by which only Islam can possibly come to mind in this day, and radical secularism. The writers state on page 9 that, "Christian Fundamentalism . . . often becomes a social movement with a Christian identity but severely diminished Christian content and manner." However, a few pages latter the same writers state that Evangelical "fundamentalism was thoroughly world-denying and politically disengaged from its outset" (p. 14). Well, which is it? A "social movement" or "disengaged"? What becomes clear is that the writers simply don't like the manner of engagement or goals of the Fundamentalist wing of Evangelicalism and so that type of "engagement" is disavowed while theirs is extolled.
The struggle to define Evangelicalism has been going on for some time now. I read a paper at the National meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society a few years ago talking about "Evangelical Boundaries" and the parallels of the current state of Evangelicalism and where British Evangelicalism found itself in the late 1880's particularly as it manifested itself in the "Down Grade Controversy" involving Charles H. Spurgeon. Spurgeon championed using the doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Union and a statement that he and others would later pen largely followed those lines. I would agree with the writers that Evangelicalism should be defined "theologically" but in their attempt to do so they ignored the foundational theological concepts that have historically defined the term.
This "manifesto" contains nothing new, memorable, or honestly even compelling. Fortunately, it has all the hallmarks of a document that will be largely ignored and soon largely forgotten. It has continued the current devaluation of the term "manifesto" to the point that one would guess the next major effort like this one will need to lock onto a new descriptive word. This "manifesto" does not go as far as the complete social liberalism of the new Evangelical Left, nor is it as theologically banal as the Emerging Church adherents who have imbibed of their philosophy; but it's not far behind.
In Dr. Waldron's most recent blog entries he makes a point that the two main proponents of Historic Premillennialism, Justin Martyr in the Patristic Era and George Eldon Ladd in the modern era had no place for a national restoration of Israel during the millennium. He states that for both Israel was to be understood as "the church" or "Spiritual Israel." In one sense this is true. Justin was the first to identify the church as the new or "spiritual Israel" (Dialogue with Trypho ANF 1:200). Ladd largely follows the same view. However, both affirm what is normative for the Historic Premillennial view, that there is a national and territorial future for Israel as well.
Justin, like most of the early Church Fathers borders on being anti-semitic, speaking of the Jews as "Christ killers" and other pejorative terminology. But even he states in relation to the last days when the Jews will repent and turn to Christ it will be in their own land:
And what the people of the Jews shall say and so, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: "I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamantation, not the lamantation of mouth or of lips but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and they shall loook upon Him whom they have piercedl and they shall say, Why O Lord, hast thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame (First Apology, ANF 1:180).
In his writings Ladd is never definitive, but clearly does allow for the Israel in the land as possible if not likely. In his Theology of the New Testament, he states:
After telling of the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the people, Luke adds the words, "Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Lk. 21:24). Here Jesus clearly anticipates a time between the fall of Jerusalem and the parousia that he names "the time sof the Gentiles." Furthermore, it is possible that this implies a future repossession of Jerusaelm by Israel when the "times of the Gentiles are ended (Ladd, Theology of the NT, 200-201).
Also he notes later in the same work:
Whatever the means of Israel's eschatological salvation, it sppears to be an eschatological event in Paul's thought. It is impossible that Israel should be saved in any way but faith in Jesus as her Messiah. Saul of Tarsus was brought to faith by a special visions of the glorified Christ; yet he was saved by faith like any believer and was brought into the church. Literal Israel, temporarily rejected, is yet to come to faith and be grafted back into the olive tree--the true people of God (Rom. 11:23). Piper has suggested that in God's plan of redemptive history, converted Israel may become for the first time in history a truly Christian nation (p. 563, italics in the original. His entire discussion of Israel and salvation in relation to Rom 9-11, pp. 561-63).
In fact Ladd notes that the concept of the millennial kingdom in Revelation 20 is "rejected not on exegetical but theological grounds," and also states, "there should be no objection to the idea of such a temporal kingdom in principle" (629).
It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Historic Premillennialism to believe that it excluded a future for national Israel both in terms of salvation or actually in the land. The Restoration Movement championed by the British Puritans (and affirmed by the American Puritans). The strong belief in the salvation of the Jews in the last days was closely tied together with Israel being one of the actual nations in the millennial kingdom. This belief was also apparently largely held by the divines of the Westminster Assembly. Robert Baillie (1599-1662) a delegate to the Assembly from Scotland, wrote, as recorded in his three volume Letters and Journals, that the larger part of the divines in the assembly were "chilaists" (premillennial). This is noteworthy also because Baillie was not premillennial and was opposed to that position.
The great prophetic conferences of the 19th Century in both America and Great Britain were, contrary to popular anti-dispenational opinion, were dominated by adherents to the Historic Premillennial postition. Participants cross denominational boundaries and represented Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist pastors and scholars. For example, E. Y. Mullins, who would be President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, at the International Prophetic Conference at the Clarendon Street Baptist Church in Boston (1901), stated:
May not the Jewish form [of the Book of Revelation] be due to the promise which He made to Abraham, and to emphasize that His purpose has not failed He maintains even the form and mould of the promise. God's decrees will reach their consummation (Prophetic Conference, p. 27).
Of course Mullins is often the favorite target of some so-called Reformed Baptists who view him as the one who led the seminary and by extension the SBC into the apostasy it was on the verge of in the 1960's. This is manifestly bad historiography and more agenda driven than an honest examination of his life and work.
The larger part of Historic Premillennialism has always held that there was not only going to be a general salvation of Jews in the millennial kingdom, but that the nation of Israel would once again enjoy a political and territorial reality in their land. Even Charles Hodge, while arguing against premillennialism and for postmillennialism, calls the future "national conversion" of the Jews a doctrine that is "according to the common faith of the Church" (Systematic Theology 3:805). He also states that the Scripture contains, "a promise of the restoration of the Jews as a nation."
The position that Israel, Biblically and Theologically, has no warrant to expect a national restoration in the land of Palestine (or a mass national conversion), as advocated by Waldron, is an approach that is outside "the common faith of the church" as it has been expressed from the beginning.
Dr. Sam Waldron, Dean and Professor of Systematic Theology, for the Midwest Center for Theological Studies has been blogging at the school's site on Barry Horner's recent publication, Future Israel (Broadman Academic Press, 2007).
In the last two entries Waldron has expanded his interaction to include a paper I wrote in 1999 entitled, Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel: A Non-Dispensational Perspective on a Literal National Restoration. This was a paper I presented at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. This work was really an extension of my earlier work on Spurgeon's view of the millennium looking at his millennial views from a slightly different angle. In this paper I attempt to demonstrate that Spurgeon was a premillennialist, who; while clearly not dispensational in his theology, none the less believed and taught that Israel as a national entity would be restored to their historic lands. In this position, Spurgeon was following in the line of the Puritan "Restoration Movement" which had begun in England in the 1600's.
Waldron believes that Spurgeon's view represents something of a "mediating position" between Dispensationalism and Amillennialism. But ultimately he states that, "Historically speaking, the eschatology of Spurgeon [including Bonar and J. C. Ryle] and company is a failed position, a failed eschatology."
Waldon's posts have too many points to deal with each one here, but there are a few observations that can be made here and perhaps more in subsequent posts over the next week. To start at the end and work backwards, Waldron makes the statement:
The long debate between Amillennialism and Dispensationalism has led also to the splintering of Dispensationalism. The current state of terminology used to distinguish the varying Dispensational positions is illustrative of this splintering. Leaving aside here the Bullingerites with their Hyper-Dispensationalism which denies that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are for today, you still have a number of varieties today of Dispensationalism. You have the Classic Dispensationalism of the Old Scofield Bible. There is the Modified Dispensationalism of the New Scofield and Ryrie. There is the yet more modified Dispensationalism of John MacArthur. Finally, there is the Progressive Dispensationalism of Blaising and Bock. A fierce debate rages within the Dispensational camp as to whether the second coming of Christ is pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath. These different positions are the result of the aggressive onslaught of Amillenialism on Dispensationalism over the last century and a half.
Well, the "long debate" has not really been between "Amillennialism" and "Dispensationalism." Amillennialism is simply a category of belief within the larger study of eschatology. The debate is more correctly between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology; those are the antithetical systems. To say that the "splintering" of Dispensationalism into the groups he mentions was caused by amillennialism or amillennial scholars is simply incorrect.
At The Master's Seminary we have the complete set of transcripts of the discussions by the editorial committee that produced the New Scofield Reference Bible and nothing there would suggest any validity to Waldron's claim in terms of the revisions to the Scofield. The movement from what has been called "Classic" Dispensationalism to the "Modified" honestly, upon examination had little to do with the eschatology of the system. There is no real change in the premillennial view from Scofield to Ryrie.
Progressive Dispensationalism was not born out of any battering from amillennialists either; it traces its roots to the "Dispensational Study Group" at the Evangelical Theological Society. That group was early on led by Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising; and to a lesser degree Robert Saucy. As an attendee of most of those early meetings, the main issue really was an attempt to interact with the works of George Eldon Ladd, F. F. Bruce (both premillennialists, and Bruce was actually Plymouth Brethren) and to a lesser degree, I. Howard Marshall. Here as well, there is no real difference in the eschatological distinctives from the earlier "forms" of Dispensationalism to the Progressive stance. This discussion was really about hermeneutics and Ryrie's sina qua non position.
As far as MacArthur is concerned, his dispensational views are, in my opinion, more influenced by Alva Mclain's Greatness of the Kingdom than perhaps L. S. Chafer, and thus is more consistently Calvinistic in his theology. I'm also not sure where MacArthur would be so distinct as to deserve his own category of Dispensationalism vis a vis, for instance, those of the Progressive group. In terms of his eschatological position, where, we would ask, is there any essential difference?
There was no "aggressive onslaught of Amillennialism" driving any of the distincive views within these positions.
Waldron also confuses the issue with the statement: "A fierce debate rages within the Dispensational camp as to whether the second coming of Christ is pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath." We will assume that the professor of systematic theology simply flubbed here mistaking the "Second Coming" which all Dispensationalists understand by definition to be premillennial; and the "rapture of the church," on which there is a variety of opinion. There has hardly been "fierce debate" on this subject and since the initial splash of the Pre-Wrath position of the late Robert Van Kampen nearly two decades ago, there has been almost no real debate on the timing of the rapture; the positions, implications, and proofs for all of the options being fairly well settled. It should also be noted that while Dispensationalists have been traditionally "Pre-Trib" in their view on the timing of the Rapture; it really is not a foundational issue. I think the Pre-Trib position is clearly the best supported from an exegetical view and is the most logically consistent with the overall system; but Dispensationalism does not rise nor fall on one's view of the rapture.
Frankly, Waldron's posturing about the splintering of Dispensationalism is little more than idle rhetoric mixed together with some wishful thinking perhaps. Debates and discussions among those who hold a particular theological construct is more often than not a sign of health and vigor rather than signaling its soon demise. It is also not as if amillennialism itself is monolithic in its expression; there are variations and nuances that have developed since the time of Augustine. It is also interesting that for Waldron the "modification," "emerging emphasis," "more careful hermeneutic," and recent works that have "brought out more satisfactorily," the particular nuances of amillennialism he favors is presented in the most glowing of expressions; while any changes or new expressions within Dispensationalism is a sign of "splintering" or the responses to an "aggressive onslaught."
Waldron also stated:
The splintering of Dispensationalism has also led to the attempt of Horner, Swanson, and others to revitalize the mediating position of Spurgeon and company. I doubt if this project can be successful. As I have said, it seems inherently self-contradictory to me. It must lead back to Dispensationalism (Horner) or onward to something else (Swanson?).
I'm actually just not sure what Waldron is thinking here. As already noted this paper is now nine years old and no where do I give any indication that I am trying to "revitalize" Spurgeon's position. I don't see Barry Horner trying to revitalize anything either. What I would point out is that amillennialism is not nor has been the exclusive eschatological option within Reformed (Baptist and otherwise) groups. Charles Spurgeon, the Bonar's (Andrew and Horatius), J. C. Ryle, among many others, were formidible Biblical scholars and theologians and held to a premillennial view as well as one that held to a return of national Israel to their land. Added to this group as well would be those of the Plymouth Brethren who were premillennial, but not dispensational such as B. W. Newton, George Mueller, and the noted New Testament scholar Samuel Tregelles. Mueller and Newton were also friends with Spurgeon and stayed with him in Mentone France on several occasions.
Waldron also seems to be asking if I am going to somewhere in terms of my eschatological beliefs. The answer simply is no. I am a dispensationalist, probably more in keeping with the Progressive position and unreservedly affirm (as I do in writing each year) the doctrinal statement of The Master's Seminary.
Lastly Waldron, was thankful that I (and Horner) had called attention to the "the peculiar eschatological views of Spurgeon and company." He believes them to be peculiar because you have a non-dispensationalist affirming a future for Israel in their land. Well, even among Historic Premillennialists, this view is not all that peculiar and is probably the most common view; which careful research would soon demonstrate.
There will be more on this in the next week or so as time permits since seminary business will occupy much of our time as we conclude another academic year at The Master's Seminary.