The 1000 Year Debate

Well, we didn’t spend much time on Sunday discussing some of the theological distinctions in matters of eschatology. Before I enter into that fray in a later post; a word regarding our statement of faith. The Evangelical Free Church (Four Oaks’ affiliation of churches) statement of faith has two points regarding ‘last things’:

9. We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission.
10. We believe that God commands everyone everywhere to believe the gospel by turning to Him in repentance and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that God will raise the dead bodily and judge the world, assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment and the believer to eternal blessedness and joy with the Lord in the new heaven and the new earth, to the praise of His glorious grace. Amen.

Let me first say that I think that these two points of the statement are quite wonderfully put and that I do affirm them without reservation. I especially love the reworking of the old statement’s point on ‘imminence’ in number 9. There was a movement in the past two or three years to amend our denominational doctrinal statement- and the statement was indeed amended this year. You can find out plenty about all that over at efca.org.

In the original design of those seeking to amend, there was hope that the word ‘premillennial’ would be removed from number 9. Premillennialism is the conviction that the Scriptures teach, in various passages, but explicitly and very literally in Rev. 20 that Jesus will return and establish an earthly reign for 1000 years. There are many good reasons to hold to such a conviction in eschatology. I affirm a physical, earthly millennial kingdom (it may or may not be a ‘literal’ thousand years, that number perhaps simply referring to a reign that lasts quite some time) without affirming much of the other distinctions surrounding what has come to be known as ‘dispensational premillennialism’ (certain views re: the nation of Israel, the reality or nature of a ‘rapture’, etc.).

Many in our affiliation of churches think that such a conclusion regarding the millennium is not necessary to an evangelical faith; and believe that unity and health in our local churches is very possible while holding to different convictions on the ‘millennial’ issue. These brothers think this distinction should not be a part of our statement of faith and hope that it will one day be removed. Though I do affirm a premillennial position regarding the last things- I agree that such a distinction in matters of creedal affirmation is not in keeping with the ethos of our doctrinal statement generally. For example, our doctrinal standard does not call for an explicit commitment to believer’s baptism or infant baptism. It seems utterly inconsistent to be broad in the area of sacraments which have very direct implications for unity and harmony in the local church and narrow in your eschatology which have arguably less implications for unity in the local church. Though, alas, that was all part of the debate. Ultimately, the fight to remove the millennial distinction lost.

So, I wish the ‘premillenial’ statement could be removed for the sake of broader fellowship while I wish the statement could be narrowed in certain areas (baptism being one; a more intentionally reformed commitment in soteriology being another). That being said, I submit to the distinction for the sake of unity. And the leadership of our local church allows our membership to enjoy full membership if they might hold a different conviction, or (most likely) are not able to fully make such distinctions as of yet. We ask that our members not teach in opposition to this position, or use any platform to bring division or disunity in the body if indeed, they do not have the same conviction. We believe that there are matters we can disagree upon, yet submit lovingly to one another out of reverence for Christ in them for the sake of unity and common mission.

Maranatha!

Eschatology Charts

Here's a helpful primer chart on the various evangelical eschatological systems.

And here's another one.

And one here.

Or here.

Check this out if you want an especially clear and easy to read overview of the various 'dispensations'. (I encourage you to enjoy all of Clarence Larkin's almost inscrutable charts.)

Premillenialism Re-Discovered

I have been working through Robert Duncan Culver's (my father's seminary professor and friend, who has recently written a wonderful Systematic Theology) presentation and defense of premillenial eschatology entitled The Earthly Reign of Our Lord With His People and I must say that I am 'rediscovering' a delight in searching the Scriptures on these matters. Our denomination and our local church affirms a premillenialist position in our doctrinal statement: #11 We believe: In the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this "Blessed Hope" has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer. Though I do not believe that such a specific eschatological commitment should be held on par with other cardinal doctrinal convictions (when, at the same time, certian more central tenets are overlooked) and should not be included in such a broad doctrinal statement. Nor do I believe that a doctrine of 'imminence' should be included, though I affirm it in a certain sense (I submit to my brothers in this for the sake of unity and ministry, go here for a discussion of the now abandoned attempt to revise the EFCA Statement of Faith). I do believe that an historic (as opposed to a 'dispensational') premillennialism is the most biblical framework of eschatology. It has been a couple of years since I explored these passages and questions, and Culver's work has strengthened my 'blessed hope'. Sadly, this work is out of print and very difficult to find (several copies are available under its previous title). So, I will provide choice quotes and salient points from his work as I read and study.

Premillennialism is the belief founded mainly upon a literal interpretation of Rev. 20:1-7 which predicts a real earthly reign of Christ with his resurrected saints for 1000 years (Pre- referring to the second coming preceding an earthly reign; millennial- referring to a literal 1000 years). This eschatological system is founded upon a host of other predictive passages throughout the whole counsel of God's Word. Culver summarizes the essential teachings of historic premillenial doctrine in three propositions (I will not prooftext here):

1. The Millennium is specifically (1) the period of time between the resurrection of the just and of the unjust and (2) the period of Satan's imprisonment.

2. The Millennium is further qualified as (1) an initial stage in the everlasting Kingdom of Christ; (2) a period begun by the visible return of Christ in glory to judge and rule the nations; (3) a period closed by the final eradication of all evil from God's universe at the final judgment of the wicked; and (4) a period during which the saints of the first resurrection will be associated with Christ in His reign.

3. In connection with the inauguration of the Millennium it is revealed that (1) the closing days of the present age shall witness the restoration of Israel to the land and the conversion of the nation, to be followed in the Millennium by the fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant promises distinctive to that nation; (2)a final personal Antichrist shall appear near the close of this present age who will become master of the world and will be destroyed by Christ at his coming, and
(3) a period of the Great Tribulation for Israel is to transpire under Antichrist's oppression, from which deliverance will be provided by Christ at His coming. (Culver, pgs. 20-21)

A commitment to premillenialism is not welcomed in most 'reformed' communities. But, along with Culver, I would say that much of what people see as 'premillennialism' is a caricature, and easily presented as a straw man. There is not a great deal of wise and careful exegesis coming out of what I'll call naive (even bizarre) 'dispensational' premillennialism these days (though this cannot be said of the history of premillennialism). The silliness of the 'Left Behind' series would be a great example. Consider Culver's introductory lament:

"Unfortunately the most grievous wounds to millennial faith have been inflicted by overzealous and sensationalist advocates among writers and preachers. As the good prophet in Zechariah 13 explains, his trauma is from "wounds...with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." this has been going on as long as I have been alive and continues unabated. These well meaning, and I think incautious people, make the millennium vehicle for far more doctrinal freight than the biblical undercarriage was engineered to carry. Some recent "evangelical" fiction has carried this to grievous extremes in my opinion. These self inflicted wounds by premillenarians may explain, in part at least, why presently literal interpretation of biblical predictions of a future reign of Christ on earth has been under severe attack from many quarters. As a matter of personal observation these excesses have certainly caused some to renounce chiliastic [premillennial] teachings and prevented others from accepting them." (Culver, pg. 7)

Culver's book lays down the gauntlet and challenges any convinced amillennialist or postmillennialist to pick it up with out merely assailing foolishness from the other side, but by answering the questions presented by an honest struggle with the text.