4 Reasons Why I’m Tentatively a Historic Pre-Millennialist

Mike Leake 11 Comments

Yesterday I proposed a grid for thinking through early church practices. I believe it partially works for how to apply early church theology too. Following a similar grid is why I am tentatively a historic pre-millennialist.

  1. New Testament passages explicitly deny a Post-millennial position; namely, those passages which show the world will get worse (2 Thess. 2:3-4) and those passages which seem to state the number of believers will be fewer than unbelievers when Christ returns (Mt. 22:14).
  2. I am not convinced by pre-millennial dispensationalism.This article explains that in part.
  3. The historical place that historic pre-millennialism holds. The Apostle John discipled Papias and Polycarp. Polycarp discipled Irenaeus. Between these three we have explicit claims that the apostle John held to a pre-millennial position.
  4. It is the most clear reading of Revelation 20:1-10. This seems to be the most clear reading of the binding of Satan and the nature of the resurrection.

In all honesty I want to hold to amillennialism. I find certain aspects of that position compelling. But I believe because of the place in history that the historic pre-millennial position holds the burden of proof lies on other positions. There is nothing in Scripture that seems to directly contradict a pre-millennial position. Therefore, I’m inclined to lean that way.

I hold the historic pre-millennial position tentatively. There does not, in my estimation, appear to be enough textual evidence to overturn the most clear reading of Revelation 20:1-10, nor to overturn the historical precedent set by the early church fathers. Therefore, I hold at least a form of historic pre-millennialism—yet there is still much that I do not know.

The one thing that I do know is that Christ is returning. Christ has defeated Satan on the Cross and will more fully defeat him in the culmination of the history as we know it. It is to the return of Christ that I look. Regardless of your view of the millennium it is appropriate to say, Maranatha!

Feel free to convince me of your position in the comments. I could be an easy sell to an a-mill position, you’ll have a more difficult time of convincing me on the others.

Today in Blogworld 04.26.13

Mike Leake

Advise for Raising Godly Children

These are 10 pithy saying from John Witherspoon, a Scottish pastor from the 1700s.

Stuff Christians Say

There was a pretty funny video a month or so back about the silly things that Christians say. This is a thoughtful response from Tim Challies on the importance of true knowledge and good words.

Envy Hunts in a Pack

This is an article that encourages us to “soak in God’s grace, kill the wolf-pack of envy, and don’t forget to scrub behind the toilet.”

Homeschool v. Public School

My wife and I are going to make the decision on Isaiah this weekend. This article was timely. We are very much on the fence. This article was timely.

I’ve been dying to know this information:

Today in Blogworld 04.25.13

Mike Leake

10 Ways to Grow a Small Group

These are great suggestions from Chuck Lawless.

When Your Husbands Heart is Hard

I wish article like this were not necessary. Sadly I imagine that they are. (HT: Challies)

Autopsy of a Deceased Church

Thom Rainer profiles a church that went from 750 in attendance in 1975 to 83 approximately thirty years later. Articles like this are painful but they are helpful for us to learn from.

Top 300 Counseling Resources

David Murray has compiled 300 resources for counseling. Though this is a massive amount of material David has divided them up and made this something immensely helpful. You’ll want to bookmark this and come back to it again and again.

Is it wrong to wonder if this goat tastes like chicken?

Why I Don’t Make the Sign of the Cross OR How to Think Through Early Church Practices

Mike Leake 3 Comments

The sign of the cross is “a ritual blessing made by members of many branches of Christianity. This blessing is made by the tracing of an upright cross or + across the body with the right hand, often accompanied by spoken or mental recitation of the Trinitarian formula.”

This practice at least goes back as early as Tertullian (160-220) who said:

“In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting off our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross.”

Because this is such an early practice it really causes me to wonder whether or not we ought to follow suit and do what these early Christians obviously practiced. As I read through early church history there are many such practices that can, at times, be unsettling.

A person in the second century lived closer to Jesus than I do. And they lived closer to the apostles—some of them even disciples of the apostles. I’ve had to give some thought to how I think through early church practices. When I come across one of these practices I ask a couple of questions.

1. Does it directly contradict Scripture? Is it expressly commanded in Scripture?

Just because somebody lived in the 3rd century it doesn’t mean that he has to be right. Even the apostle Peter abandoned the teaching of Jesus when he hypocritically refused to eat with Gentiles. That means that anybody who isn’t the incarnate Son of God is fair game for questioning. And we question ourselves and history according to the Scriptures. (In fact if the claims of Christ were held up “according to the Scriptures”).

If a practice contradicts Scripture then I had better avoid it no matter what tradition says. On the other hand if something is expressly commanded in Scripture (and not merely descriptive) then I had better be sure to practice it.

2. How does it translate into today?

There is a reason why I don’t encourage the women in our church to wear head-coverings. It’s not because I believe what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 11 has no meaning. It is because I believe the symbol of head-coverings has lost the meaning that Paul wanted to highlight. Therefore, it’s pointless to make a stink about the shadow if the substance is retained in something else.

So if I see an early church practice I’m left to wonder whether it has that same meaning/symbolism in our day. If it doesn’t can that be recovered? Would it require a ridiculous amount of teaching to recover a 2,000 year old practice? Is there really a point in doing that—especially if it’s not something commanded in Scripture?

Also under this question I ask myself whether or not this practice would cause others to stumble. Is it possible that this practice is something that is associated with a former life that would cause my brother or sister to stumble?

What about the sign of the cross?

On my first question, I do not believe that it directly contradicts any Scripture. Unless you want argue that somehow the sign of the cross confers grace upon someone, then we’ve got a problem with sacramentalism. I also believe that it is not directly taught in Scripture. (I’m not persuaded by the instances in Revelation of marking the forehead with the sign).

Based upon this I’m not going to throw a massive stink if someone is using the sign of the cross as mnemonic tool to remind them of the Trinity, Christ, and His gospel. But am I going to do it myself?

No.

That is because it doesn’t pass my second test. I believe that the practice has become superstitious for many. Most of those that I’ve asked about doing the sign of the cross (which is a small sample size) have not really known what it means. “It’s just something we do”.

For most people in my Southern Baptist congregation making the sign of the cross is a “Catholic thing”. We live in a very Roman Catholic community. One in which people are brought up in the church but many do not have a vital relationship with Jesus*. When they truly come to know Christ they associate things like “the sign of the cross” with their former way of life—which to them was nothing more than superstitious idolatry. For me as a pastor to make the sign of the cross it would, I believe, cause them to stumble.

Therefore, I do not make the sign of the cross, but I don’t make a stink about those that do it—especially if they actually know what it means.

My major point in this article is actually not about making the sign of the cross but only to use that as an example of how I think through early church practices. I believe this is a grid by which we can decide whether or not an early church practice ought to be adopted in our congregations.

—

I’m not saying that a Roman Catholic cannot be saved. My answer to that question is similar to that of Doug Wilson.