Does it really matter whether I believe we are in the millennium or it is yet to come? If the C&MA is a movement more then a denomination then why do we take a stand in our doctrinal statement on premillennialism? This has bothered me for some time.
What is our goal as a movement? It is my understanding the C&MA seeks to evangelize the nations, to fulfill the great commission. This appears to be the driving force behind everything we as a denomination do. That is one reason I like the C&MA (though there are other denominations who have the same goal). Yet as I go over the doctrinal statement in the discovery class at our church there is one item I don't really care if the people in our church agree with. It is the doctrine of premillennialism. This is what the doctrinal statement says:
11. The second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is imminent and will be personal, visible, and premillennial.
Why can't we just stop after "visible." I have friends and congregants who are amillennial. They are deeply committed to Christ and to seeing the great commission accomplished. Should I tell them they can't be members? Maybe I should not allow them to teach or preach. If we are going to give liberty in this area even though it is in our doctrinal statement then what good is having a doctrinal statement? If we are to be a movement shouldn't we place as little restriction on doctrinal issues as possible? We should certainly make statements about the essentials of the Christian faith, but is premillennialism an essential? If it is, then are we saying those who believe in amillennialism are heretics? Of course that list would include Calvin, Luther, and most of the other reformers.
I am not asking this question rhetorically. I would really like to know. I understand that Simpson was premillennial, but is that reason enough to continue to hold this particular doctrine as part of our doctrinal statement?
Perhaps this part of the C&MA doctrinal statement should be changed. Maybe it is time to reconsider how tightly we hold on to this doctrine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I, too, have a hard time seeing premillennialism as an essential (or primary) doctrine of the faith. So I'd be interested in seeing other people's take on this.
I am a premillennialist and I have my reasons for such. Having said that, I do not think one's opinion or belief is essential to salvation nor is it essential to a person's doctrinial acceptance. One's view on the authority of the Bible, the sufficiency of Christ and His sacrifice, the sovereignity of God and man's depravity are of far greater importance than whether or not Christ is returning tomorrow, in 42 months or in seven years.
the premillenial view point has to do with whether or not Christ is going to reign on the earth as a King. All of the prophecies concerning Christ need to be fulfilled to include his reign as King. Now if he doesn't come back to the earth to reign how exactly is that reign going to take place? If you read Revelation you will see that he reigns for 1000 years, and it is just a prophetic fact. Here is the scripture:
Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Revelation 20:4-5
Christ being a healer is not essential to salvation, yet it is solidly taught in scripture and so we affirm it with our doctrinal statement. If the C&MA, which I love, were to start cutting out parts of the Doctrinal Statement I would withdrawl from the denomination personally. I have been a part of many other denominations and movements, I interact on a regular basis with lay person, Pastors, and leaders of other groups.
I can tell you without a doubt what you believe about the millenial reign of Christ will affect how you live your life. I watch it happen daily with those who believe that his return doesn't matter.
John I think you need to make sure with your folks at church that when we say pre-millenial they understand that pre-millenial and pre-tribulational are comepletely different. We are not talking about the tribulation period, we are talking about whether or not Christ will rule on the Earth as a King as prophesied both in the OT and NT. If we do not believe that he will reign we are saying the scripture has one error, and then if one why not 100, as you can see the whole of our doctrine will fall apart.
You can, inside the Alliance be pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib about the rapture. I for instance am a post tribber. But you must be pre-millenial and so must your people to be members of your church. The uniform constitution for Alliance churches found in the manual states that a qualification for membership in an alliance church is acceptance of the Docrtrines of Jesus Christ as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming King. Coming King means that he will reign as a King for 1000 years. If you accept folks into your church who deny that as voting members then you yourself are denying it. Even if you don't agree with it you must uphold the standard.
I personally don't agree with the abstinence policy about drinking and such, but I uphold it because those in authority over me say that I have to. God placed them in authority over me and so therefore I must submit to them beacause what they are asking me to do is not sinful. I hope and pray that you will teach your congregation that Jesus WILL reign on the earth for 1000 years, and that is what pre-millenial means. I bet a lot of the folks in your church are confusing pre-millenial with pre-trib. Check and see, it has happened in the church I pastor as well.
I notice that you have comment moderation on for this post. If you choose not to post my comment email me and let me know what you think. jdbreedlovejr@bellsouth.net
Remember that doctrinal statements are not written in a vacuum. They are written to contend for issues of the faith that are burning hot at the time they are written. They are like battle plans - written for the situation into which they are going to war. My best understanding of it is that when the C&MA doctrinal statement was written, holding to a premillenialist position was a fairly good indicator on whether or not someone truly accepted the authority of Scripture or not. It is not as good of an indicator nowadays, though it's actually not terrible in that role, either.
That said, I don't know how long you've been in the Alliance, PJ - I am a newcomer, myself. But I've been told that this comes up at every General Conference. So it is always under discussion.
Pastor Jerry,
I appreciate your comments. I would like to make a couple things clear.
First, I understand the confusion people have when it comes to pre-mill vs. pre-trib. That is not the case here.
Second, I should let you know I currently hold to a historic premillenial view. That said I can see how someone who holds to a reformed view of scripture would arrive at amillenialism.
Third, I am well aware of the distinctives of the alliance although I have been part of other denominations for most of my life. I don't believe the Alliance has to give up any of its distinctives to make this kind of a change.
Fourth, I think your understanding of the amillennial view is at the very least incomplete if you think an amillennialist would deny the reign of Christ. Many of the most significant teachers and preachers in the history of the church have held views other then pre-mill. They did not deny the authority or inerrancy of scripture. Your characterization of those who would hold a different view is not accurate.
Fifth, I agree with you about the prohibition of drinking and I also have kept my word. That said I am not sure how I am going to deal with this issue.
Last, I am not sure what you are reffering to when you talk about people living different because of their millennial view. I believe doctrine does impact how we live, as it should. However, some of the most godly people I know hold to an amillennial view. It seems to me this is a silly place to draw the line.
Crimson, I did not know it comes up at council. I hope it changes at some point in the future. Regarding using this view as an indicator for a persons view of scripture I would only say it is not good enough. Martin Luther said, "Scripture is the cradle of Christ" I don't like everything Martin Luther believed, but I do know he held to a very high veiw of scripture and I believe he was amillennial along with many others.
The "Premillenial" word is absent in the Candian C&MA's statement of faith. I also believe it is absent in many of the other national bodies' statements of faith.
I have mixed feelings on this. I am personally premilennial and Simpson was certainly premilennial in his teaching. Indeed, many of his ideas about healing and sanctification are rooted in distincly premilennial ideas.
That having been said, I can see how those ideas can be 'ported' to a- or post- milennialism and amilenialism has been the generally accepted orthodoxy in the universal church since at least the 4th Century.
In other words, I'd rather see it taken out even though I'm premilennial.
Pastor John,
Perhaps my understanding of amillenialism is incomplete. But from what I understand amellenialism interprets the 1000 year reign of Christ allegorically. Here is the standard definition of amillenialism as taken from Karleen, P. S. (1987). The Handbook to Bible study : With a guide to the Scofield study system. "This book is intended as a companion to the Scofield Reference Bible"--Pref.; Includes indexes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Amillennialism.
The view of the plan of God that holds there is no physical/spiritual kingdom on the earth over which Christ reigns visibly and personally; contrasted with premillennialism and postmillennialism (q.v.); S. ch. 4, Interpreting the Bible, and ch. 18, Future Things.
When you look at the "future things" section of the book here is a small quote of what is written.
Amillennialism
Held by many fine evangelicals, including Reformed churches in general, it is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as many Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Southern Baptists. Our discussion will center on the Protestant versions of it.
As implied by the name, it is essentially negative. There will be no kingdom on earth with Christ reigning over it (the a-prefix indicates the denial of a millennium.) Strictly speaking, the name is not quite accurate, since a kingdom (if it does not have to be a literal thousand years in length) is allowed for. But what is denied is a visible, physical kingdom with Christ present. We are in the kingdom in some way right now. Christ will return after the Church Age has run its course, and subsequently the “eternal state” will begin. Many amillennialists see a tribulation period at the end of the present age, but in any case the creation of the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 21:1) could not be far away from any time during this present age. The imminent return of Christ is His coming to resurrect the dead of all ages, to judge the unsaved dead, and to usher in the joy of the redeemed in the presence of God.
The history of amillennialism is significant. It can be traced to the Church Fathers, and particularly the approaches to Scriptures of Origen and Clement of Alexandria, who believed that the Bible was to be interpreted allegorically, with the true meaning discovered beneath the surface. Augustine applied this especially to prophecy. In allegorical interpretation it is quite easy to impose any preconceptions on Scripture, since the most evident meaning is tossed aside in favor of one that is actually arrived at subjectively.
The clear prophecies in the Old Testament of an earthly kingdom for ethnic Israel could thus easily be applied to the Church. As a result of this methodology of Augustine, the Roman Catholic Church was amillennial. Although the Reformers did reassert the truth of several great biblical doctrines, they did not really deal with eschatology. Thus Reformed theology as a whole has been amillennial.
As you can see historically amillenialism has denied the literal thousand year reing of Christ on the Earth as a king. Perhaps folks holding to this view today do not deny it but the very word amillenial is a denial of the millenial kingdom, or at least when you hold to the standard definition of the word. In short the amillenial viewpoint is a type of Kingodm now theology. The church being Christ's reign. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what amillenial means historically.
Second, our viewpoint does affect how we live. One of the major driving forces behind Alliance missions in the past has been the ushering in of the millenial Kingdom. As Jesus said, "This gospel will be preached as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." To hasten the return of the King many folks have poured their lives into missions work, trying to reach "every nation" so that Christ would institute his blessed reign as King. I am not saying that those who hold to an amillenial view don't do missions, because they certainly do, but people become really zealous about missions when we are working to bring back our King. Also as I expect his emminent return to the earth to reing as a King on earth, so that those prophecies might be fulfilled, I work diligently to walk holy so that when the master comes and finds the servant (me) that he may not be disappointed in what he finds.
I look forward to hearing back more on this from you. This is a good discussion and exercise for you and I both. I believe it is not only important to know what we believe, but why we believe it. And in the end if we end up on opposite sides of the issue I will still try to win folks to the Lord with you. :-)
Clearly Amillennialism believes there is no literal 1000 year reign of Christ. The probles is this. Many people who hold to premillennialism claim a "literal" hermenutic when approaching scripture, but in reality they take many things in scrupture and in Revelation to be alegorical. So in a book where there are many things that appear to be symbolic or alegorical in nature it would make sense for the 1000 year reign to be alegorical.
Most premillennials believe a "literal" interpretation of Rev. Is the only way to approach the text. Unfortunately many of them either end up turning locusts into hellicopters (hardly literal) or practicing a less then literal interpretation in some other area. As I read Revelation it is clear that much of it is symbolic in nature. Just because someone uses and "alegorical" interpretation does not mean they can make it say anything they want. Every interpretation must be justified.
A persons understanding of the millennium should not impace their desire to do evangelism. There is no reason to think the words of Jesus have any less significance for the amillennialist then for the premillennialist. It is simply a disagreement about what will happen when Jesus comes.
I will probably make this my last comment on this issue simply because I do not want to get into a debate over this issue as I am ill prepared to defend an amillennial view.
If you are interested in understanding the Amillennial view I would suggest a book I have only read pieces of. I am a little tenative to read the book because I think I might be persuaded. The book is A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding The End Times by Kim Riddlebarger
I understand what you mean about people interpreting the locusts as helicopters and such. I have addressed that type of interpretation during the last year as I have been teaching on Sunday mornings through the book of Revelation, and I fully agree with you that interpretation that way is a stretch to say the least.
Our church is 38 sermons into Revelation it will be 39 this next Sunday with probably another 20 or so to go before we finish the book. You put it very well when you said that we must be able to justify our interpetations of scripture. I think a lot of times we can't justify it. (including myself)
I have very much enjoyed this talk with you, I hope I haven't bugged you too bad, and if you are going to be at council this summer I would love to go out and get some lunch or dinner with you. We could talk about football or something instead of theology.
Post a Comment