Creeds, Confessions, Traditions and the Kingdom of God: Part III

I am in the middle of a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not something that can be said to be here, but only something to anticipate. I have made six arguments, a "so what" post, and a number of quotation posts. Two nights ago I wrote a state of the union explaining my curiosity at finding Premillennialism suspiciously absent from the creeds and consensuses of the major branches of Christendom. Then, last night, I wrote a followup to it. Tonight I have something small to add to these two state of the union posts.

I was thinking that it could seem ironic that I accept Tradition's canon, then turn right around and use that canon to disagree with Tradition.

So I did some introspecting and I thought I would share with you why I think doing this is ok.

I don't accept the canonicity of books of the Bible because Tradition does. In other words, I don't view the authority of the Bible as being in any way derived from Tradition. Rather, I see Tradition as recognizing the divine inspiration of the scriptures. And I don't take their word for it. I am moved by their arguments.

And so since, as I mentioned in the previous post on this matter as well as in another older post on this blog, one has no choice but to think for oneself, rather than think about which Tradition is the right one to adopt as a religious authority, I will think about which Tradition is right.

Further, it is not clear that Jesus or the apostles meant for there to ever be a religious authority (at least not in the Roman or Eastern sense). And how would we adjudicate between competing authorities? The only way is to try and see which has accurate theology. But if we are able to determine theological matters on our own, what would we need a religious authority for?

Therefore I will respect tradition highly and count it as useful and trust that in some sense the Spirit is guiding it, but I will not elevate it so highly that I won't be bold enough to break from it where I think it's beliefs are unwarranted scripturally or philosophically (and this is only relevant to my view of the Kingdom of God if it is true that candidate religious authorities indeed teach contrarily to my Premillennialism, and I have already stated that I am not convinced Premillennialism is at least not incompatible with the earliest and most popular creeds).

Stop Obama from giving $1,500,000,000 of your money to the Abortion Industry.

Abortion is wrong, most of us think so, and Obama should know it (a growing number in his own party do).

From the Susan B. Anthony List:

Did you know the abortion industry wants a $1.5 BILLION taxpayer bailout?
President Obama's 2010 Budget recommendations signal the Abortion Bailout is in full swing!

Here is the 2010 edition of the Abortion Bailout Package:

• Taxpayer funding for abortions in the District of Columbia
• $317 million in taxpayer funding for “Title X” Health Clinics (aka your local Planned Parenthood affiliate)
• $50 million for the UNFPA, an international aid organization connected to coercive abortion as part of China’s coercive one-child policy
  
  In December 2008, Abortion groups submitted a 50 page proposal to the Obama-Biden Administration. To date President Obama has fulfilled 11 of the 15 policies requested for the first 100 days. With more of the Abortion Bailout to come, we can surely expect to see some of the other demands to come in the months ahead:
  
  
• Include Abortion coverage in any taxpayer-subsidized national health care program
• Expand taxpayer-funded abortions on military bases
• Expand taxpayer-funded abortions through the Peace Corps program
• Expand taxpayer-funded abortions for federal prisoners

Send a letter to your Senators by filling out the form on the Susan B. Anthony list right now.

Creeds, Confessions, Traditions and the Kingdom of God: Part II

I am in the middle of a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not something that can be said to be here, but only something to anticipate. I have made six arguments, a "so what" post, and a number of quotation posts. Last night I wrote a state of the union explaining my curiosity at finding Premillennialism suspiciously absent from the creeds and consensuses of the major branches of Christendom. Tonight I post a followup to that. Specifically, I have a two-pronged answer to why I think Premillennialism can't really be found in any of the creeds.

The other day Jon and I were talking and he was explaining to me a revelation he had had. As he's been dealing with government offices and policies and businesses and the business world he realized something like that we are all just people and this is a big mess.

As I have been studying (admittedly only a bit - I am no scholar), I have been realizing that historical Christianity is full of just a bunch of people and is a big mess. Now don't get me wrong - I think the Holy Spirit has moved in that mess and I think the History Books tell us stories of "just people" being used by God for His purposes. I think the Hero is always God and it is always Him despite humanity, and that's part of the whole point.

At any rate, my current thinking on the councils (those called "ecumenical" by various groups and otherwise) is pretty broadly stroked and fuzzy, but comprises two elements.

First, their creeds and canons were not divinely inspired like the scriptures were (and I think they would agree).
Second, they were conducted by humans (and I think they would agree with this too).

The second belief I list above in light of the first lowers my view of the veracity of the creeds. It is not clear which councils ought to be considered "ecumenical", much less what ecumenicity is exactly and exactly how it is relevant. Each council has its own set of controversies, dissenters, and amendments (some are even amended [contradicted?] by later councils that are also recognized as authoritative by certain groups recognizing the previous as authoritative).

If one wants to believe in the authority of church history, one has to pick a historical side on a ton of issues in succession, or work really hard at principally defining the scope of those to be considered authoritative while sifting through their disagreements to find the lowest common theological denominator (and is this even the right approach?).

Theology by democracy seems tricky when it isn't clear whose votes to count.

Further, how ought this picking, defining, and sifting be done? According to what criteria? At some point one has to think for oneself. This must be done to come up with the right criteria by which to pick, define, and sift, or one has to think about which authority's picks, definitions, and sifts to adopt.

But isn't thinking for oneself (in some qualified sense anyway) incompatible by the belief in religious authority?

Not to mention the fact that it is not clear how Jesus' promise, that the Holy Spirit will guide us, has or will occur exactly (viz. it is not clear that the councils were the direct and exclusive outworking of this promise, or that the majority of those who administered or attended them thought so).

As of tonight, I am not convinced that any creeds or authorities outside of the scriptures ought to be seen as inerrant. It seems like they are about extremely useful.

So on to my second prong. It seems like, while Premillennialism isn't explicitly taught by any of the major creeds, neither is any other eschatological system. It appears that they just weren't addressing Last Things yet. They were still worrying about basic things like, you know, condemning major Christological and Trinitarian heresies.

Either that, or they believed that there was room for eschatological disagreement within orthodoxy.

There is much to be studied on all of these matters. Still I maintain that the works that we have all agreed are canonical, teach Premillennialism, and I find it significant that most of the earliest and most respected church fathers, especially those said to have had direct ties to John himself, were evangelistically Premillennial. I hold these conclusions with an open mind.

Can a man be faulted for honestly struggling to understand these things?

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Timothy 2:5)

"But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9, NLT)

Creeds, Confessions, Traditions and the Kingdom of God: Part I

I am in the middle of a mini-series (when does a mini-series become a series? Sorry for posting so much lately!) on why I think the Kingdom is not quite here yet. I have posted seven major entires, and included some intermittent quotations. I have plans for a number of additional entries, but tonight I want to take a break and give you sort of a state of the union.

In my extra-Biblical research I have found a wide number of very early Christian leaders and thinkers, especially those who are said to have been disciples of John the Apostle or of one of his disciples, who are Premillennial (most notably Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Terullian). However, I have noticed that explicit Premillenialism is not taught in any of the Ecumenical creeds, nor really in any of the proceeding major creeds or confessions. Further, the Orthodox, Catholic, and Reformed traditions are all more or less Post- or Amillenial.

The only really major traditions I can find that are Premillennial are HIstoric Premillennialism (which includes a number throughout history, and a healthy number of the Reformers, such as Spurgeon), and pretty much all of the various modern Dispensationals (Classic and Progressive and whatever other flavors there may be). I think Premillennialism might still be the minority view if you tally up every Christian's vote for all time.

What do I make of this? I am not sure. I still think, and am willing to defend my position that, the Biblical authors intended to convey a Premillennial eschatology, and I also have the witnesses of a very large number of very early church fathers, and then the couple traditions I mentioned above.

But no creeds, confessions, or major branches of the church? Could I have missed something in the Biblical text? How high of a view do I have of the creeds?

I am thinking it through. I found this Preterist who makes an interesting case against hyper-creedalism. While I might disagree with his eschatological system, I think I might be willing to adopt his view on the creeds. It's still very high, but maintains that they are not to be considered scriptural and so may contain non-damnable errors. Thus when intra-mural theological disputes arise, we are permitted to break with the theology of the creeds if we have a scriptural basis for it.

Augustine, who is famously Amillennial, was Premillennial for a long time before becoming so and maintains that there is room within Orthodoxy for Premillennialism. He cautions Premillennials to not become too materialistic though, making sure we agree that that the goodness of the Kingdom is that we will be fully relationally restored with God, and not that we will inherit a nice shiny world to do with whatever we want.

It seems like he and a number of others maintain that Premillennialism is at least compatible with the creeds. He's a Compatibalist in that way I guess (ha, ha).

In addition to exploring this, today I took a bit of time to read some from Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho, which is amazingly clear and Biblical and ancient and, as previously noted, Premillennial. It is highly recommended.

Stay tuned.

Justin Martyr on the Kingdom of God

CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT.

And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"

Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae,Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

CHAPTER LXXXI -- HE ENDEAVOURS TO PROVE THIS OPINION FROM ISAIAH AND THE APOCALYPSE.

"For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My I people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound. Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent[shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, saith the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree[of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the nay fie ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.' (Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Trypho" c. 80 AD)

Justin Martyr is one of the earliest significant Christian apologists after the apostles. He is cited as a religious and philosophical authority by both Irenaeus and Tertullian. He suffered martyrdom at Rome under the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

"Dispatches From the Front" and the Kingdom of God

Abraham Piper is giving away a DVD of a series about the frontlines of the mission field. The series' website points out that

Often our view of God’s Kingdom is too small and limited to what we have experienced.

They have no idea just how true that statement is.

"Swedish parents keep 2-year-old's gender secret"

This is interesting:

We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

And it's not cruel to bring a child into the world with a purple stamp on their forehead?

the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.

And androgyny isn't a social construction?

"I believe that the self-confidence and personality that Pop has shaped will remain for a lifetime," said Pop's mother.

You bet it will.

If gender is a social construction and not a biological one, why would it be necessary to "keep it a secret"? What is there to be kept secret?

Irenaeus on the Kingdom of God

"If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: "When the cities" of the Gentiles "shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate." "For, behold," says Isaiah, "the day of the LORD cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it." And again he says, "Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God." And when these things are done, he says, "God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth." "And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves." For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies, Book V", c. 180 AD)

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was said to be a disciple of John the Evangelist. He is one of the earlier witnesses to the recognition of the canonical character of all four gospels. He is recognized as a saint by both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches (and by Protestants, I suppose, since we follow St. Paul in calling all Christians "saints"). "Against Heresies" was written primarily as a defense against Gnosticism.

Tertullian on the Kingdom of God

"But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, "let down from heaven," which the apostle also calls "our mother from above"; and, while declaring that our... citizenship... is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld." (Tertullian, "Against Marcion")

Tertullian lived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ and is credited with coining our term "Trinity". He spoke very clearly of three Persons, sharing a single Substance. He is also credited with coining the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament".