Alan P. Boyd, Premillennialism, and the Post-Apostolic Fathers

Dr. Thomas Ice

DispensationalDistinctives, Vol. II, No. 3;May-June 1992

"Alan P. Boyd, Premillennialism, and the Post-Apostolic Fathers, Part I"

byThomas Ice

One of theongoing controversies between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalistsrevolves around what the church has historically believed or not believed onissues relating to dispensationalism. One of the major lines of, attacks commonly employed by opponents ofdispensationalism is to say that the system of theology is so new and uniquethat it cannot be Biblical or it would have developed earlier. Most dispensationalists have replied,like Martin Luther did to the Roman Church, that the issue should be settled onthe basis of exegesis and what the Bible teaches, not what the church hashistorically believed. Forexample, dispensationalist Dr. Charles Ryrie has noted, "After all, theultimate question is not, Is dispensationalism-or any other teaching-historic?but, Is it Scriptural? Most opponents of dispensationalism realize that this isthe issue, but they still persist in using the historical argument with its fallaciousimplications." (Dispensationalism Today (Moody Press,1965):67)

ALAN BOYD AND DALLAS SEMINARY

Those who have been following the debate knowthat those within the Domionist camp have been especially critical ofdispensationalism, since our theology is the opposite of their "victoriouschurch" scheme. Reconstructionists have attempted to weaken the commonly held view fromvirtually every quarter of scholarship which recognizes that the post-apostolicchurch was largely Chiliastic (premillennial). One of the sources being used the last few years by Reconstructionists(and a few others) in their attempt to give a black eye to dispensationalismhas been a Master of Theology thesis from Dallas Theological Seminary.

Dallas Seminaryhas usually been thought of as the world center for dispensationalism. In 1977, Canadian Alan Patrick Boydwrote a ThM thesis for the Historical Theology Department called "ADispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-ApostolicFathers (Until the Death of Justin Martyr)." 1977 was also the year Ientered Dallas Seminary, where I too majored in Historical Theology under Dr.Edwin C. Deibler and Dr. John D. Hannah, who were the graders of Boyd's thesis.Reconstructionists believe that they have a tool from inside the dispensationalwomb which disproves our basic contention that the early church was primarilyChiliastic for about the first200-300 years of her existence.

THE TRUTH ABOUT "BOY, O, BOYD!"

Recently myReconstructionist friend and adversary Dr. Ken Gentry has been producing aseries of articles about Boyd's thesis entitled "Boy, O, Boyd!" forthe Gary North supported publication Dispensationalism in Transition (V:8; Aug. 1992), which is in its fifth year ofblasting the theology they most love to hate-dispensationalism. Included in Gentry's background onBoyd's thesis is a reference to a phone call I made to him last year about myphone conversations with Alan Boyd concerning his thesis, who is currently apastor in Canada. I informedGentry that I had sent Boyd copies of the material that Reconstructionists hadwritten using his thesis. Boydwondered if they had really read through his entire thesis since he thoughtthat they had misunderstood what he had said. He felt that they had used his material improperly to arguethat the early church was not significantly Chiliastic. Boyd told me on the phone that theearly church was Chiliastic, but did not reflect a dispensational brand ofpremillennialism and this was his point in his thesis. I then commented to Gentry that Ithought this was especially significant in light of the fact that Boyd said hewas not longer a dispensationalist and had become posttrib, but still apremillennialist, since he wrote his thesis 15 years ago.

Gentry wrote inhis article that Boyd was still a dispensationalist and said, "Accordingto Tommy Ice, he [Boyd] remains a dispensationalist to this day." As justnoted above, I actually said exactly the opposite. This statement provoked me to call Gentry and find out whyhe had misrepresented me. When Itold Ken that he was mistaken on that point in his article, he said he did notknow why he misunderstood, but would correct the mistake in a futurearticle. We discussed Boyd'sthesis further and told Ken that I thought he was misusing Boyd's material byoverstating the case against the premillennialism of the early church.

Another commentthat Gentry got wrong from our phone conversation was related to Boyd'sattitude toward Reconstructionist use of his thesis. Gentry said, "Frankly, I was astonished when I heardthat Boyd was surprised that his work was being employed againstdispensationalism. What in theworld did he expect?" I didnot tell Gentry that Boyd was astonished over their use of his thesis, insteadI told Gentry that Boyd seemed to be somewhat surprised that his thesis hadbecome a center of controversy, not that it was being used by them. Gentry then said, "According toIce, Boyd feels that his arguments have been taken out of context and wronglyemployed in anti-dispensational polemics." Once again, that is not what I said or even implied. Boyd thought that Reconstructionistshad misapplied his material in relationship to the broader issue of the extentand nature of the early church's premillennialism, not dispensationalism. Apparently Gentry's basicmisunderstanding about Boyd's current relationship to dispensationalism hascontributed to further error in his understanding of what I had told him aboutBoyd's reaction of Reconstructionist use of his thesis.

WAS THE EARLY CHURCH AMILLENNIAL?

One of the majorquotes used by Reconstructionists from Boyd's thesis which has led to confusionabout what Boyd is saying is a footnote from his conclusion. Boyd recommends that dispensationalistspursue five things in the future in the area of early church studies as itrelates to eschatology. His thirdsuggestion was that we need to do more direct study of the early church fathersand their interpretation of prophecy. In that light he said, "And thus avoid reliance on men like Geo. N.H. Peters, . . . whose historical conclusions regarding premillennialism . . .in the early church have been proven to be largely in error. Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas,Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hegesippus can not be claimed as premillennialists.This validates the claim of L. Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, (1937; reprinted., Edinburgh: The Banner ofTruth Trust, 1969), p. 262, '. . . it is not correct to say, as Premillenariansdo, that it (millennialism) was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of thisdoctrine were a rather limited number.' On the other hand, this invalidates the claim of premillennialists likeJohn F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, p. 137, 'The early church was far from settled ondetails of eschatology though definitely premillennial.'" (Italics mine). (92)

This is whyReconstructionists like Gary DeMar use Boyd to give his readers the impressionthat while there was some premillennialism in the early church, it was notwidespread, and he seems to suggest that amillennialism was really the morewidespread view of the ancient church, which is not the case at all. DeMar writes in The Debate OverChristian Reconstruction (a bookwritten as a sentence by sentence rebuttal to a live debate he had with DaveHunt and I in 1988) that Boyd said, "So then, it's amillennialism that shows up in the early church"(96). DeMar goes on to declare,building upon his reading of Boyd, "Where, then is the historical evidencefor premillennialism? What was once considered insurmountable evidence, has nowturned out to be scant evidence" (97).

It is interestingthat when I looked at the full Berkhof quote cited by Boyd and delighted in byDeMar, that Berkhof's list of patristic (i.e., early church fathers)premillennialists is longer than Boyd's. This raises a question about Boyd's basis for evaluating the fatherswhich will be dealt with in our next issue. Boyd concluded that "Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas,Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hegesippus can not be claimed aspremillennialists" (92). However, Berkhof, whom Boyd is quoting in agreement, includes Barnabasand Hermas as patristic premillenarians. Upon reading the full text of Berkhof on this matter, he does not seemto be saying that the majority view of the early church was not premillennial,but that modern premillennialists have overstated their case as to the fullextent of early premillennialism. One thing can be said with certainty, and that is that the early churchcertainly was not amillennial,as DeMar implies.

No wonder Boydtold me in our phone conversation that Reconstructionists had misused histhesis. Boyd is not saying thatthe early church was not Chiliastic or premillennial, instead the thrust of histhesis was to say that they were not like the modern or dispensationalpremillennialists; but that while still Chiliastic, the seeds of, notdispensationalism, but amillennialism are found in the fathers.

"It is thepresent conviction of this writer that there was a rapid departure from NewTestament eschatological truth in the early patristic period. Therefore, it warrants the writerlittle concern that there are no roots of dispensational premillennialism inthat period, but instead the roots of both post-tribulationism and amillennialism. The roots of dispensational premillennialism areScriptural, and the most one could hope to find in the early patristic periodwould be some remnants of it (as this thesis demonstrates there are). Similarly, it warrants little concernthat there is evident post-tribulationism and seminal amillennialism in thesepatristic writings. A rapiddeparture from New Testament eschatological truth would account for thisphenomenon." (Boyd:Preface)

CONCLUSION

The statedpurpose of Boyd in his thesis was "to determine whether Dr. Ryrie's'premillennialism' is similar to, or dissimilar to, the premillennialismexhibited in some of the patristic writings under consideration" (2). Boyd's very statement presumes that theearly church was premillennial. What Boyd was doing in his thesis was comparing the modern system ofdispensationalism premillennialism with patristic premillennialism to see howsimilar the two brands of premillennialism were. Boyd concluded, not that the early church was not premillennial,but that early church did not have much in common with modern or dispensationalpremillennialism as represented by Dr. Ryrie and others.

In our next issueI will pursue this matter further.

DispensationalDistinctives, Vol. II, No. 4;July-Aug 1992

"AlanP. Boyd, Premillennialism, and the Post-Apostolic Fathers, Part II"

byThomas Ice

In this article Iam continuing interaction with Reconstructionist use of Alan P. Boyd's "ADispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Post Apostolic Fathers (Until theDeath of Justin Martyr)," which was his 1977 Master of Theology thesis atDallas Theological Seminary. WhileI am in basic agreement with Boyd's work, I do agree with Reconstructionist KenGentry that it is "not without its flaws (e.g., occasional scanty treatment and presumptiveconclusions)" ("Boy, O, Boyd!" in Dispensationalism inTransition (V:8; Aug. 1992):1).

SOME PROBLEMS WITH BOYD'S WORK

It must be keptin mind that the purpose of Boyd's thesis was to compare modern dispensationalpremillennialism with ancient premillennialism to see if there is a basis forsimilarity. Boyd was correct toconclude that there were not many similarities. However, in his zeal to demonstrate his point I think thathe sometimes gave the benefit of the doubt away from dispensationalism andpremillennialism. Boyd has accuseddispensational premils of not distinguishing between modern premillennialismand ancient forms when they do historical surveys of the fathers. This is often true, but we also mustkeep in mind that most of the time when modern premils are surveying theancients they are merely attempting to discover who is a premil, regardless ofwhat kind of premillennialism they happen to hold.

In our book DominionTheology: Blessing or Curse?, we were mainly dealing with the issue ofpremillennialism vs. postmillennialism, not dispensationalism per se. However, our critics wanted to discuss what kindof premillennialism was present or absent in the early church, which was notthe issue for us. We also wantedto show that futurism was also widespread, although undeveloped, in oppositionto the preterism of many Reconstructionists. However, they wanted to discuss the issue ofdispensationalism in their rebuttals. This is something that Boyd could have noted more clearly in histhesis: that the early church,when they spoke, was basically premil. This Boyd admitted to me in our phone conversation. Reconstructionists should keep in mindthat regardless of how different and advanced in many areas dispensationalismis from primitive formulations of premillennialism, both are stillpremillennial. That is somethingthat dispensationalists have in common with early Chiliasm. Anti-dispensationalist, John Gerstner,has correctly said, "All do agree, however, that you cannot haveDispensationalism without premillennialism. Therefore, the presence of premillennialism admits thepossibility of the presence of Dispensationalism. Conversely, the absence ofpremillennialism almost proves the absence of Dispensationalism." (WronglyDividing The Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991):8)

The criterionthat Boyd used to determine who was a premil and who was not is likely toostrict to yield a true and complete picture of the patristic fathers. As noted in the previous issue of DispensationalDistinctives, anti-premil scholar, Louis Berkhof, concludedthat at least two of those classified as not being premils by Boyd were calledpremil by Berkhof. Those two werethe Epistle of Barnabas and Hermas. Here is a difference in judgment. W.G.T. Shedd, who is distinctly anti-premillennial also includesBarnabas and Hermas as ones who "exhibit in their writings distinct tracesof this doctrine [i.e., premillennialism]"(A History of Christian Doctrine (CharlesScribner, 1864):II:390).

I think Boyd'scriterion that an early church father has to say something explicitlypremillennial, or he was not premillennial is too narrow. I think that this is reasonable inlight of the fact that so many others from that period who had an identifiableeschatology were premil. When thisis combined with the fact that there are no specific examples of a clear anddistinct amillennialism in any of the other fathers, then why would it beunreasonable to think that most of the others should not be classified aspremil because they do not have explicitly clear statements?

This assumptioncould be further supported by Justin Martyr's statement in his Dialogue withTrypho the Jew when he wasaddressing the issue of "a thousand years in Jerusalem." Justin says, I admitted to youformerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and that such will takeplace, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to youthat many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, thinkotherwise" (80). True, thisis a clear admission by Justin that there are many other orthodox Christians of his time who werenot premil. But at the same timeJustin's statement also includes a general confirmation that many others are of his premil faith as well. The problem for non-premillennialistsis that we do not have extant records of statements by many who were notpremil. Anti-premil Shedd alsosees Justin Martyr's statement declaring widespread premillennialism. "So general had the tenantpremillennialism become in the last half of the 2d century, that Justin Martyrdeclares that it was the belief of all but the Gnostics" (II:394).

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RECONSTRUCTIONIST USE OFBOYD

First, it must bekept in mind that Boyd's thesis surveyed a very narrow slice of early churchhistory consisting of only about 65 years. Had Boyd included the 100 years following Justin Martyr, ashe suggests someone else carry out (91), then it would have revealed a time ofeven greater premil dominance. Shedd notes that "The period between the year 150 and 250 is theblooming age of Millenarianism; . . . The Millenarian tendency became strongeras the church began, in the last half of the second century" (II:392-93).

The problem withsome Reconstructionists is that they tend to cite Boyd's work, which onlycovered a relatively short period of early church history, and then makecharacterizations of the overall early church period. Gary DeMar follows this tactic in The Debate OverChristian Reconstruction.

Reconstructionists tend to spend much of theirtime in the historical debate showing how many of the tenets ofdispensationalism are not found in the early church, and then attempt to arguethat dispensationalism is so different that it should not really belong in thepremillennial family at all. Dispensationalism, no matter how developed it may be in comparison toancient premillennialism, is still premillennialism, and by virtue of that factdoes have continuity with the early church. Further, we argued in our book Dominion Theology, that early church premils also tended to befuturistic and literal in their interpretation. It is modern premillennialism or dispensationalism that hasdeveloped a consistent use ofthe literal and futuristic hermeneutic. Because early premillennialism was not consistent, even though thesefeature were present, helps explains why it eventually broke down intoamillennialism. This is the wholepoint of dispensational premillennialism: that we have attempted to pursue a consistently literal and futuristic hermeneutic, especially asit relates to God's plan for Israel and for His church. I completely agree with Boyd that the"majority of the writers/writings in this period completely identifyIsrael with the Church" (47). I further agree when he says that "this thesis would conclude thatthe eschatological beliefs of the period studied would be generally inimical [i.e.,unfriendly, TDIl to those of themodern system (perhaps, seminal amillennialism, and not nascent dispensationalpremillennialism ought to be seen in the eschatology of the period)."(90-91).

The fact that theearly church's brand of premillennialism was at too many points inconsistentwith the later developed logic and theology of premillennialism explains thedecline of premillennialism into amillennialism. The seeds of replacement theology within thepremillennialism of the early church eventually bore, not only the fruit ofanti-Semitism, but of full blown amillennialism. However, even though the ground of early premillennialismwas soft, it still cannot be denied that the early church was indeedpredominately premillennial. Theycertainly were not amillennial, even though the seeds of amillennialism werepresent.

CONCLUSION

Boyd's thesis can show us as dispensationalistssome important things. One ofthose lessons would be the Reformation principles of Scripture as the soleauthority in determining truth; and the Reformation belief in an ever reformingchurch. It is nice to have theantiquity of church history on our side, and we do in the area ofpremillennialism. However, it isof sole importance to have the authority of God's Word supporting ourbeliefs. I believe that this iswhat we have when it comes to the matter of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists have, over theyears, majored in Bible exposition and not historical theology. This likely explains why our theologyhas attracted so many Bible believing Christians the last few hundred years.

Boyd sums up ourhistory and a proper response when he says: This writer believes that theChurch rapidly fell from NewTestament truth, and this is very evident in the realm of eschatology. Only inmodern times has New Testament eschatological truth been recovered.Dispensational premillennialism is the product of the post-Reformation progressof dogma . Any dispute that it has with other modern eschatological systemsmust be settled on the ground s of Biblical truth and not historical precedent.(91)

Another thingBoyd's thesis demonstrates is the historical validity of John Walvoord'sanalysis of where systems of theology lead. He used to tell us in class while I was a student under himat Dallas Seminary, that there are ultimately two consistent systems ofeschatology: amillennialism anddispensational, pretrib, premillennialism. All other systems were inconsistent blends of the two basicsystems. Boyd's historicalevaluation that the premillennialism of the early church contained "the roots of bothpost-tribulationism and amillennialism" (Preface) support Walvoord. I would contend that because thepremillennialism of the early church was not dispensational; since it mixedIsrael and the church and was posttrib, then we should not be surprised to seeit collapsing over a period of time into amillennialism.

I have seen thetruth of Dr. Walvoord's observation work in the lives of many thinkingChristians, who have backed off from dispensational distinctions intoposttribulationism and then into amillennialism. I have also seen it go the other way, as an amillennialiststarts taking God's plan for Israel literal ending up in the dispensationalfold. Scripture is our onlyauthority for building our faith, but knowing the church's history helps to showus where our beliefs will lead us.