was there An "official" baptist eschatological position?

[Yeshua1]

The dead in Christ shall arise and be glorified, to become as he now is, at the time of the rapture/Second Coming
(depends if 2 events as i see them, or same event as others hold!)

First resurrection unto eternal life, second resurrection unto etrnal death at great White Throne Judgement!

Sepertaed by 1000 year period of Chrsit reign upon the earth as Gods messiah!

 

[Jerome]

The Abstract of Principles of the Southern [Baptist] Seminary

A general resurrection and a general judgment rule out any pre-millennial position

OldRegular, if you're right (that provisons of the Abstract rule out any pre-millennial position), how in the world could Albert Mohler, a premillennialist along many other faculty at SBTS, honestly serve under the 'Abstract of Principles' regime?

And I thought Mohler could walk on water. Goes to show you.

Please expand on your cryptic answer regarding Mohler's nonadherence to the Seminary's Abstract of Principles. Do his premillennial beliefs put him in opposition to the Abstract?

 

[OldRegular]

Would it be historical pre mil?

Read the Historic Baptist Confessions. The ones I referenced in my post which you seem unaware are online. I would also note that The Southern Baptist Church disputes the pre-trig-dispensational doctrine of a "parenthesis" Church stating in the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000:

"The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

 

[OldRegular]

Please expand on your cryptic answer regarding Mohler's nonadherence to the Seminary's Abstract of Principles. Do his premillennial beliefs put him in opposition to the Abstract?

Sport that thread is 3 years old!

 

[tyndale1946]

An examination of the early confessions of Baptists indicate that they were amillennial!

A few in this day and age still are!... Me and a know of others!... Brother Glen

 

[Jerome]

[snipped] that thread is 3 years old!

Yes, please expand on your cryptic answer regarding Mohler's nonadherence to the Seminary's Abstract of Principles. Do his premillennial beliefs put him in opposition to the Abstract?

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, please expand on your cryptic answer regarding Mohler's nonadherence to the Seminary's Abstract of Principles. Do his premillennial beliefs put him in opposition to the Abstract?

You will have to ask him. He is the boss-man there!

 

[HankD]

Chialism (millennialism) dates back to the early church fathers.

The Secret Rapture theory appears to have been developed by Jesuit priests.

Developed from the biblical models of "the days of Noah" (Luke 17:26) and the Days of Sodom" (Luke 17:29). In both of these models a small remnant of God's choosing was delivered from the destruction to follow. So shall it be in the Coming of the Son of Man they reasoned and called it the "rapture" because "rapturo" is the Latin word for "caught up" in the air of 1 Thessalonians 4 from the Vulgate. Look at the Luke passages also along with 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

As far as I can tell, the rapture is first attributed to Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) and Roberto Bellarmino and later another development of their work was published by a Jesuit named Manuel Lacunza (1773). Somehow it fell into the hands of Scottish preacher Edward Irving and then Nelson Darby who popularized it in the Plymouth Brethren Church (I believe).

There was also a young girl involved named Margaret MacDonald associated with Darby who (apparently) had visions of the Rapture.

If you want more history Google these names because the historical accounts don't all match.

I do believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is what the term "rapture" means - we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

It is the same phrase found in 2 Corinthians 12
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Most modern dispensationalists have abandoned many of the excesses of the "traditional" view (i.e. the parenthetical church theory, the two gospel theory) and are know as progressive dispensationalists.


HankD

 

[PreachTony]

A few in this day and age still are!... Me and a know of others!... Brother Glen

The smaller Baptist churches in my neck of the woods are, by and large, amillennial. Not that there aren't pre-tribbers, premils, and others in the congregations, but it's never been a hugely stressed point amongst us.

I could tell you some horror stories about eschatology and how it can split a church, but that's a different topic for a different time.

 

[Yeshua1]

Chialism (millennialism) dates back to the early church fathers.

The Secret Rapture theory appears to have been developed by Jesuit priests.

Developed from the biblical models of "the days of Noah" (Luke 17:26) and the Days of Sodom" (Luke 17:29). In both of these models a small remnant of God's choosing was delivered from the destruction to follow. So shall it be in the Coming of the Son of Man they reasoned and called it the "rapture" because "rapturo" is the Latin word for "caught up" in the air of 1 Thessalonians 4 from the Vulgate. Look at the Luke passages also along with 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

As far as I can tell, the rapture is first attributed to Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) and Roberto Bellarmino and later another development of their work was published by a Jesuit named Manuel Lacunza (1773). Somehow it fell into the hands of Scottish preacher Edward Irving and then Nelson Darby who popularized it in the Plymouth Brethren Church (I believe).

There was also a young girl involved named Margaret MacDonald associated with Darby who (apparently) had visions of the Rapture.

If you want more history Google these names because the historical accounts don't all match.

I do believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is what the term "rapture" means - we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

It is the same phrase found in 2 Corinthians 12
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Most modern dispensationalists have abandoned many of the excesses of the "traditional" view (i.e. the parenthetical church theory, the two gospel theory) and are know as progressive dispensationalists.


HankD

Would you agree with me that pre mil seemed to be the standard baptist take on end times, with the viewpoint concerning timing of a rapture was pretty much left to us to decide upon, based upon our conclusions from the scriptures?

 

[HankD]

I guess I need to explain some points.

First, I'm not looking for a fight with anyone and I would even prefer to say that we having a discussion about our differences and learning what makes us tick-tock in a different cadence as Baptists (Christians first) in spite of our "distinctives" which make us Baptists.

Second, although dispensationalism has different pedigrees, I don't agree completely with any of them even so-called progressive dispensationalist (They are fuzzy concerning the distinction between Israel and the church.

My distinction is between redeemed or saved Israel and the church (wheat no tares).

I do believe that God will call redeemed Israel out of national Israel during the time of Jacob's trouble (a.k.a. The Great Tribulation) and these are they who are called the 144,000 of the 12 tribes.

Next, I don't think Chafer liked Scofield's "parenthesis" theory because the word has the nuance of an "afterthought" and I agree with OR completely. The Church of Jesus Christ is no afterthought.

But I don't think Scofield meant it that way (as an afterthought).

Also, I don't think Chafer was correct with the word "intercalation" because it has the idea of a later insertion perhaps not as an after thought but as a necessary addition to something apparently completed. e.g. An extra day is intercalated in the month of February every 4 years.

IMV the Church is the crowning achievement of the Triune God, the target for all of the world's history which preceded it and the origin of all events successor to it. IMO Both of the qualifying terms of these men are not noble enough for it.

In terms of the path of history, it is the fulfillment of the abrahamic covenant that Abraham's Seed (uppercase "S") who would be a blessing to all the nations of the earth.

But to say that it was hidden and/or a mystery before the incarnation is certainly tolerable because for the most part (except for metaphors and hints here and there) it was indeed. Paul elaborates upon this.

Finally, Nelson Darby has become the straw man of this discussion. He has become the scapegoat of non-dispensationalism. He has become like a George "W" Bush to the democrats, and it's unfair to the dispensationalists of the 21st century to say or imply he is the model by which we are all cast.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Would you agree with me that pre mil seemed to be the standard baptist take on end times, with the viewpoint concerning timing of a rapture was pretty much left to us to decide upon, based upon our conclusions from the scriptures?

Yes, I think that is the case but there are many varieties.
Also I don't know about the South, I've lived north of the Mason-Dixon line all my Yankee life (up to this point in time).

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, I think that is the case but there are many varieties.
Also I don't know about the South, I've lived north of the Mason-Dixon line all my Yankee life (up to this point in time).

HankD

Well essentially all the early Baptist Confessions indicated a General Resurrection and Judjment. I have posted the more prominent ones in the thread " John Nelson Darby vs Baptist Confessions of Faith"

{Note: the 1644 statement is from http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/Arti...onOfFaith.htm; the rest of the statements are from Lumpkin’s Baptist Confessions of Faith which omits the statement from the 1644/1646 Confession!}

THE LONDON CONFESSION OF 1644/46

Article LII.

There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust, and everyone shall give an account of himself to God, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.


THE MIDLAND ASSOCIATION CONFESSION [1655]

Article 16 [page 200].

“That at the time appointed of the Lord, the dead bodies of all men, just and unjust shall rise out of their graves, that all may receive according to what they have done in their bodies, be it good or evil.”


THE SOMERSET CONFESSION [1656]

Article XL [page 214]

“That there is a day appointed, when the Lord shall raise the unjust as well as the righteous, and judge them all in righteousness, but every man in his own order, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose punishment will be everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.”


THE STANDARD CONFESSION [1660]

Article XX [page 231]

“That there shall be [through Christ who was dead but is alive again from the dead] a Resurrection of all men from the graves of the earth, both the just and the unjust, that is, the fleshly bodies of men, sown into the graves of the earth, corruptible, dishonourable, weak, natural, [which so considered cannot inherit the Kingdom of God] shall be raised again, incorruptible, in glory, in power, spiritual, and so considered, the bodies of the Saints [united again to their spirits] which here suffer for Christ, shall inherit the Kingdom, reigning together with Christ.”

Article XXI [page 231]

“That there shall be after the Resurrection from the graves of the earth, An eternal Judgment, at the appearing of Christ and His Kingdom, at which time of judgment which is unalterable, and irrevocable, every man shall receive according to the things done in his body.”


The SECOND LONDON CONFESSION [1677]

Chapter XXXI. Of the State of Man after Death and of the Resurrection of the Dead [page 293]

“1. The Bodies of Men after Death return to dust and see corruption; but their souls [which neither die nor sleep] having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them; the Souls of the righteous then being made perfect in holiness, are received into Paradise where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory; waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked, are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day; besides these two places for Souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.

2. At the last day such of the Saints as are found alive shall not sleep but shall be changed; and all the dead shall be raised up with the self same bodies, and none other; although with different qualities, which shall be reunited with their Souls again forever.

3. The bodies of the unjust shall by the power of Christ be raised to dishonour; the bodies of the just by His Spirit unto honour, and be made conformable to His own glorious body.”


Chapter XXXII. Of the Last Judgment [page 294]

“1. God hath appointed a Day wherein He will judge the world in Righteousness, by Jesus Christ; to Whom all power and judgment is given of the Father; in which Day not only the Apostate Angels shall be judged; but likewise all persons that have lived upon the Earth, shall appear before the tribunal of Christ; to give an account of their thoughts, Words, and Deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

2. The end of Gods appointing this Day is for the manifestation of the glory of His Mercy, in the Eternal Salvation of the Elect, and of His Justice in the Eternal damnation of the Reprobate who are wicked and disobedient; for then shall the Righteous go into everlasting life, and receive the fullness of Joy, and Glory, with everlasting reward in the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into Eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.

3. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a Day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin and for greater consolation of the godly, in their adversity; so will he have that day unknown to Men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour, the Lord will come; and may ever be prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, Come quickly, Amen.”

 

[Marooncat79]

Historically either Amillenial ie 1689 or what we call Post Trib premillenialists aka historical premill

Amill -original SBCers J P Boyce, John Dagg, P H Mell, W E B Johnson

Historic Premills- C H Spurgeon and B H Carroll of SWBTS

We place much more emphasis on this issue than our forefathers ever did.

There was also some post mill but that view died out at the end of WW II. Interestingly, D James Kennedy held this view

There is also a view known as "Historicism" John Gill, Isaac Newton-yes that one, and Matthew Henry

Here is John Gill

http://www.historicism.com/Gill/bodgill.htm

I am 85% sure of this information

 

[OldRegular]

I don't think it precludes premill eschatology. Not if you think of a general resurrection in terms of the thing rather than the event. That all, righteous and wicked, will be resurrected one day even premill's agree. If that is the point of, then this is just as consistent w/ the abstract principles above.

Now if you force the words to mean 1 event, then yes I see the tension, although it is not insurmountable.

Actually I believe that Gill believed in an earthly millennial reign but the only folks there were resurrected Saints.

 

[OldRegular]

Double post!

 

[OldRegular]

Historically either Amillenial ie 1689 or what we call Post Trib premillenialists aka historical premill

Amill -original SBCers J P Boyce, John Dagg, P H Mell, W E B Johnson

Historic Premills- C H Spurgeon and B H Carroll of SWBTS

We place much more emphasis on this issue than our forefathers ever did.

There was also some post mill but that view died out at the end of WW II. Interestingly, D James Kennedy held this view

There is also a view known as "Historicism" John Gill, Isaac Newton-yes that one, and Matthew Henry

Here is John Gill

http://www.historicism.com/Gill/bodgill.htm

I am 85% sure of this information

Spurgeon was premillennial but Carroll was postmillennial

Gill's view was as I posted earlier! His body of Divinity is something else; 994 pages, double column, and looks like 6-8 point type at most!

 

[Marooncat79]

My bad on Carroll. He is the one that I was most unsure of. Spurgeon was a post trib right?

 

[OldRegular]

My bad on Carroll. He is the one that I was most unsure of. Spurgeon was a post trib right?

No you were correct about Spurgeon. Surgeon really did not have much to say about eschatology!

 

[Darrell C]

No you were correct about Spurgeon. Surgeon really did not have much to say about eschatology!

So quoting Spurgeon in an eschatological context makes little sense, right?


God bless.