Originally published in "The Lord's Coming Herald & Wesleyan Bible Prophecy Advocate," Spring Edition 1998
Premillennialism: Orthodox Faith Of The Protestant Church?
Some folks naively assume that the
Wesleyan Holiness movement has ALWAYS believed the popular dispensational
premillennial theory. According to our knowledge, however, the first college to
ever teach dispensational premillennialism in America was Dallas Theological
Seminary! And Dallas theological Seminary has historically been anything but
committed to the doctrine and experience of entire sanctification by faith as a
second definite and instantaneous work of divine grace! What Bible holiness
standards have been upheld by Dallas over the last fifty years? Or what mighty
Holy Ghost revival has flown in the wake of those who have gone out from— yea,
even conservative Wesleyan Holiness Bible colleges!— with the message of
Scofield Darbyism?
Friends, the old Wesleyan Methodist schools did not teach
premillennialism. If any one can go back before the 1920's and prove that any
Wesleyan Holiness institution officially taught premillennialism, please let me
know. I am willing to make public confession to any errors of fact I make, if
proven wrong.
Those who glibly assume that what we moderns believe about
the second coming of Jesus Christ is what the orthodox Protestant Church has
ALWAYS taught are hereby challenged to check the historical record and get the
facts. The renowned Methodist theologian, William B. Pope, gives us this summary
of the received status of premillennialism:
"Medieval Chiliasm [premillennialism] was generally the
badge of fanatical and heretical sects. . . . After the Reformation, the
Anabaptists in Germany preached a carnal reign of Christ upon earth, as the
Fifth Monarchy Men in England afterwards did, and with frightful consequences to
life and morals. Hence the Lutheran Symbols were emphatic in condemning it. . .
. The Reformed Churches were equally strenuous. . . . The Articles and Formularies
of the Anglican Church are not in favor of Pre-Millenarianism. . . . It may be
safely affirmed that the Confessions of the Reformation, as well as its leading
divines, were opposed to the doctrine of two resurrections, and of a personal
reign of Christ on earth intervening between them" (Compendium of
Christian Theology, 3:396-397).
Modern premillennialists typically attempt to claim for
themselves the advantage of historical precedence, asserting that the belief in
a future, literal one-thousand year physical reign of Christ on earth was indeed the
pure doctrine of the early church. Mere assertions do not establish the
historical veracity of the claim itself, however, as the following quotation
from the chief authority on millennial studies, D. H. Kromminga, points out:
"The evidence is uniform to the effect, that throughout
the years from the beginning of the second century to the beginning of the
fourth chiliasm, particularly of the premillenarian type was extensively found
within the Church but that it was never dominant, far less universal; that it
was not without opponents, and that its representatives were conscious of being
able to speak for only a party in the Church. It may be added, chiliasm never
found creedal expression or approbation in the ancient church. Some
premillennialists make contrary claims, but they fail to substantiate them. . .
But whether we like it or not, the facts look very much indeed as if
amillennialism made its appearance in early extra-canonical Christian literature
fully as early as did any chiliasm" (The Millennium in the Church:
Studies in the History of Christian Chiliasm [Grand Rapids: W. B.
Eerdmans, 1945], pp. 51 and 33).
Methodist theologian Dr. Daniel Steele, in his book, Antinomianism Revived the Theology of the Plymouth Brethren Examined and Refuted,
lists numerous historians from the ages of the Christian Church, all tracing the
essentially unorthodox nature of premillennialism. Eusebius, so said Steele,
affirmed that premillennialism "produced divisions and apostasies of whole
churches." 'When tested by the Scriptures," he goes on to quote from
Dionysius, "it collapsed" (p. 130).
The title of a recent Darbyite publication, A Case For
Premillennialism: A New Consensus, is quite ironic, in view of the fact
there never was an old historical consensus over premillennialism to start with!
Some Dallas Theological Seminary dispensational premillennialists are starting
to call themselves "progressive," and well they should: their original
Darby/Scofield theory has proven itself quite wholly indefensible!
Related Article Links
Why Premillennialism Is Heresy
Why Premillennialism Should Be Rejected
John Wesley On The So-called Jewish Millennial Kingdom Theory
What Is Millennial Glory?
The True Nature Of Christ's Kingdom