The Westminster
Standards are, indeed, very specific about issues pertaining to eschatology. We
shall now look at the Westminster
Confession of Faith once again, particularly chapter XXXIII paragraph 1.
Among the chapters of the Confession of
Faith which were emended by the Bible Presbyterians, it is notable that an
emendation was added to chapter XXXIII paragraph 1. According to Jeffrey Khoo,
the emendation was written as follows:
“God hath appointed a day (which word in Scripture in reference
to the last things may represent a period of time including the thousand years
following the visible, personal and premillennial return of Christ),
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 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 [words in italics added by the
Bible-Presbyterian Church].”[1]
Concerning the emendations to the Confession, Battle
Chapter 32,
Of the State of Man
“2. At the last
day return of the Lord Jesus, such living persons as are
found alive in him shall not die, but be changed: and all the
dead in Christ shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none
other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their
souls for ever.”
“3. The bodies
of the unjust shall, after Christ has reigned on earth a thousand years by
the power of Christ, be raised by the power of God to dishonor; the
bodies of the just, by his Spirit unto honor, and be made conformable to his
own glorious body.”
Chapter 33,
Of the Last Judgment Things
“1. God hath
appointed a day (which day in Scripture in reference to the last things may
represent a period of time including the thousand years following the visible,
personal and pre-millennial return of Christ) wherein he will judge the
world in righteousness by Jesus Christ . . . .”[2]
From our study of
the Larger Catechism,[3]
it has been established that premillennialism, particularly Dispensationalism,
is apparently incompatible with the Westminster Standards. Taken together with
the Larger Catechism, it is difficult
to understand the Confession as
expounding two distinct judgments: an earlier judgment for the church before
the Judgment Seat of Christ, and a later one after the millennium i.e. the
Great White Throne Judgment. The Westminster Standards also oppose any
understanding of the Second Advent of Christ as constituting two separate
events. According to dispensational premillennialism, there is a secret coming
of Christ for His church, and a visible, glorious return of Christ with His
church before the millennium. In addition, the dispensationalist postulates at
least three judgments and three resurrections.
The teachings of
the Westminster Larger Catechism
cannot be divorced from the Confession of
Faith. The Westminster Shorter
and Larger Catechisms, as well as the
Confession of Faith, form an integral
unit comprising the Standards of the Westminster Assembly. Thus, the Catechisms and the Confession of Faith must be studied together, and not apart from
each other. W. Robert Godfrey relates to us that the Larger Catechism was intended to contain
a more comprehensive enunciation of the Confession
of Faith:
“On January 14, 1647, the [Westminster] Assembly had adopted a motion
“that the committee for the Catechism do prepare a draught of two Catechisms,
one more large and another more brief, in which they are to have an eye to the
Confession of Faith, and to the matter of the Catechism already begun.” George
Gillespie observed that the Larger Catechism would be “for those of
understanding” while other Scottish Commissioners referred to it as “one more
exact and comprehensive.” . . . Clearly the Larger Catechism was intended for
the more mature in the faith.”[4]
Frederick W.
Loetscher goes further, and states that “[the Larger Catechism is] chiefly
designed as an adaptation of the [Westminster
How, then, can a
self-professed Reformed minister teach a system of eschatology that contradicts
the Westminster Standards?[7]
Can a Reformed church add an emendation to the Confession of Faith, which unashamedly contradicts the original
statements of the Larger Catechism,
and yet claim to be theologically consistent and Reformed? Apparently, the sine qua non of Dispensationalism has
become the “directory” for Bible Presbyterian ministers in their teaching of
Dispensationalism “Sunday by Sunday.” It, therefore, appears to be an enigma
why Dr Khoo has failed to address the obvious contradictions between the Bible
Presbyterians’ emendations of the Westminster
Confession of Faith and the original statements of the Larger Catechism.
The enigma
resolves when we realize that the Larger
Catechism is, likewise, emended by the Bible Presbyterian Church to
accommodate premillennialism.[8]
The emendations seem to be an inevitable consequence of attempts to rectify
contradictions between the Larger
Catechism and the Confession.
Changes made in the Larger Catechism
are as follows (deletions are lined out; additions are in italics):
Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the
resurrection?
A. We are to believe, that at the Last Day there shall be a general
resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust: when they when Jesus Christ returns the just that
are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the self-same bodies of
the dead in Christ which are laid in
the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up
by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by
virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual,
and incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body in the first resurrection. The bodies of the wicked shall, after a thousand years, be raised up in
dishonour by him, as an offended judge in
the second resurrection.
Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the
resurrection?
A. Immediately after the second
resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of men and
angels, the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and
pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord the destruction of the earth by fire, and the ushering in of the new
heaven and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Q. 89. What shall be done to the wicked at the day of
judgment?
A. At the day of judgment After
their resurrection, the wicked shall be set on Christ’s left hand shall be judged, and, upon clear
evidence, and full conviction of their own consciences, shall have the fearful
but just sentence of condemnation pronounced against them; and thereupon shall
be cast out from the favourable presence of God, and the glorious fellowship
with Christ, his saints, and all his holy angels, into hell, to be punished
with unspeakable torments, both of body and soul, with the devil and his angels
for ever.
Q. 90. What shall be done to the righteous at the day
of judgment?
A. At the day of judgment After
the resurrection, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds;
shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and
acquitted; shall join with him in the
millennial reign, and the judging
of reprobate men and angels; and shall be received into heaven, where they
shall be fully and for ever freed from all sin and misery; filled with
inconceivable joys; made perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul, in the
company of innumerable saints and angels, but especially in the immediate
vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the
Holy Spirit, to all eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion, which
the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory, at the
resurrection and day of judgment.[9]
It is stated in
the Westminster Confession of Faith,
chapter XXXIII paragraph 1, that “God hath appointed a day, wherein he will
judge the world”. Despite the didactic, non-symbolical language of the Confession of Faith, it is plain that Dr
Khoo does not understand “a day” to mean a literal day.[10]
But in his reiteration of David Cooper’s “golden rule,” Dr Khoo writes:
“In our study of the Bible, it is important that we observe this basic
rule of interpretation: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek
no other sense” (David Cooper). Unless there are compelling contextual reasons
against taking a word in its literal sense, we should understand a word in its
most natural or common sense. Thus, 1,000 years means literally 1,000 years. Israel means Israel Israel
Ironically Dr Khoo,
who insists on a consistently literal hermeneutics, does not understand “a day”
to mean a day. This self-professed literalist understands neither the “last
trump” (1 Cor. 15:52) as being the last, nor the first resurrection (Rev. 20:5-6)
as being the first. Despite the fact that there are no “compelling contextual
reasons against taking a word in its literal sense,” Khoo understands “a day”
in the Confession of Faith to mean a
period of time of more than one thousand years. Moreover, he interprets the
“last trump” as not being the last,
and the “first resurrection” as not being
the chronological first. Yet he demands that “Israel
means Israel
Commenting on the
rebirth of Israel
“This is “the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which
shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt ,
and from Pathros, and from Cush ,
and from Elam , and from Shinar Israel ,
and gather together the dispersed of Judah
Dispensationalists
and Bible Presbyterians understand that this passage in Isaiah prophesizes the
future regathering of Jews from all the corners of the earth, namely Assyria,
Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar and Hamath. Commenting on this text (Isa.
11:11-12), Martin writes,
“In verses 11-16 Isaiah spoke of the Lord’s gathering the people of Israel
and Judah Egypt
and Cush ),
east (Assyria ...
Elam Babylonia ) and west (islands of the sea)-from the four quarters of the earth.
Both Israel
and Judah
In the immediate
context of this passage whereby “Israel Cush Pathros , Cush , Elam ,
Shinar and Hamath must be
reborn before Israel Israel means Israel ,
and Church means Church,” “Assyria” must mean Assyria, “Pathros” must mean
Pathros, and “Cush” must only mean Cush
Dispensationalists,
who insist that “Israel
means Israel Russia or the Soviet Union according to some dispensationalists.[15]
This method of allegorical interpretation is further exemplified by Charles
Dyer in his commentary on Ezekiel,
“Ezekiel spoke of a coalition of several nations, many of which are
today aligned with or under the influence of the Soviet
Union . These include Iran
(“Persia ”), Sudan and northern Ethiopia
(“Cush ”), Libya (“Put”), and Turkey Israel
Despite their
insistence that “Israel” must be understood literally as Israel,
Dispensationalists such as Dyer allegorize the meaning of “Persia,” “Cush,”
“Put,” and “Meshech” to mean Iran, Sudan, Libya, and Turkey respectively. In
response to such hermeneutical inconsistencies, William J. Grier writes,
“The prophets frequently speak of the dooms upon Edom , Philistia, Assyria ,
etc. The literalist holds that these dooms are yet future. But where are the
Edomites, the Philistines, the Assyrians? Who can find them? Zechariah foretold
that the families of David, Nathan, and Shimei would weep, every family apart
(12:12-14). The literalist holds that this is yet to be, but no one on the face
of the earth today can establish their descent from any of these.”[17]
The analogy of
faith is the Reformed principle of interpretation. Old Testament prophecies
must be understood with the light of New Testament revelation, not vice versa. Grier is correct to say that
“to interpret the Old Testament prophecies with a uniform literalism, as many
try to do, is to turn into a stone what the Lord meant for bread.”[18]
Conclusion
It should be clear
to the reader that the literalist does not interpret all, or even most, of
prophetic Scripture literally. There are certainly occasions whereby he
spiritualizes or allegorizes portions of Scripture which do not fit his system
of theology, particularly the eschatological schema of Dispensationalism.
Contrary to popular claims, this is not
a consistently literal hermeneutics.
As regards the
Westminster Standards, Bible Presbyterians are even compelled to emend the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism, so as to incorporate
dispensational premillennialism into Reformed teachings. But we have seen that
the literal, plain understanding of the Reformed confessions does not allow
such a system of eschatology. It is, therefore, unlikely that the dispensational
premillennialist can truly adhere to the Reformed system of doctrine set forth
in the Westminster Standards.[19]
References
Note concerning abbreviated references: Please refer to previous posts for more details of repeated references
Note concerning abbreviated references: Please refer to previous posts for more details of repeated references
[1] Khoo, Fundamentals
of the Christian Faith, 132.
[2] John A. Battle, “Eschatology in the Bible
Presbyterian Church,” Western Reformed
Seminary 11, no. 2 (2004): 19-20.
[3] This refers to the original Larger Catechism prior to the
emendations of the Bible Presbyterian Church.
[4] W. Robert Godfrey, “An Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism,” in The Westminster Larger Catechism: A
Commentary, ed. G. I. Williamson (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co, 2002), x, quoting John Murray, “The Catechisms of the
Westminster Assembly,” Presbyterian
Guardian, December 25, 1943, 362.
[5] Frederick W. Loetscher, “The Westminster Formularies: A Brief Description,” in The Westminster
[6] Thomas F. Torrance, The School
of Faith
[7] We cannot claim to teach the Westminster
Standards when we teach something different
from the Standards, unless, of course, we change
the original statements of the Standards. And this is exactly what the Bible
Presbyterian Church has done.
[8] With a similar logic, any denomination can emend the Westminster
Confession of Faith, as well as the Larger
Catechism, and claim to adhere to the Westminster Standards.
[9] See Westminster
Larger Catechism of the Bible Presbyterian Church [article on-line];
available from http://www.bpc.org/wlc/index.html;
Internet; accessed 21 November 2006.
[10] The expression “a day” appears in both the
original and the Bible Presbyterian’s version of the Confession.
[11] Khoo, Fundamentals
of the Christian Faith, 135.
[12] Timothy Tow, The Truth Shall Make You See (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College
Press, 1999), 26.
[13] Martin, “Isaiah,” 1057.
[14] This principle of interpretation is
unfortunately repeated ad nauseam. See Timothy Tow and Jeffrey Khoo, Theology for Every Christian: A Systematic
Theology in the Reformed and Premillennial Tradition of J Olover Buswell (Singapore : Far Eastern Bible
College , 2007), 399. Here, the authors wrote, “God means what He
says, and says what He means. Israel means Israel; Zion means Zion; Jerusalem
means Jerusalem.”
[15] See Edwin M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier: Invading Hordes from the Russian
Steppes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1982) for an excellent
critique of this erroneous interpretation.
[16] Charles H. Dyer, “Ezekiel,” in The Bible
Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas
[17] Grier, The
Momentous Event, 40.
[18] Ibid., 41.
[19] This, of course, refers to the Westminster
Standards prior to Bible Presbyterian
emendation.
No comments:
Post a Comment