Specifically, Westminster affirms that the day and hour of the second coming are unknown but that believers ought to watch and pray expectantly for it, believing that it is near. The WCF thereby makes no allowance for modern—that is, partial-preterist—postmillennialism. In the final portion of its concluding chapter, “Of the Last Judgment,” the Confession delivers a clear vision of eschatological expectancy: so will he [Christ] have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen. —The Westminster Confession of Faith 33.3

Three and a half decades ago, Reformed theologian Richard Gaffin cautioned the Calvinist community that “postmillennialism deprives the church of the imminent expectation of Christ’s return and so undermines the quality of watchfulness that is incumbent on the church.”1 Postmillennialist Keith Mathison, rather than heeding this pastoral warning, countered that Gaffin’s words “demonstrate how influential dispensational thinking has become,” since “the doctrine of the imminent return of the Lord is one of the ‘great fundamentals of Dispensationalism.’”2 According to Mathison, Gaffin’s teaching on the imminence (nearness) of the second coming “is not a historically Reformed doctrine” and “the use of this argument by a Reformed theologian is ironic.”3[3]
The irony, however, lies elsewhere.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)—along with its confessional offspring, The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order (1658) and The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)—affirms the doctrine of Christ’s imminent or near return (to be distinguished somewhat from the notion of an any-moment return4). Specifically, Westminster affirms that the day and hour of the second coming are unknown but that believers ought to watch and pray expectantly for it, believing that it is near. The WCF thereby makes no allowance for modern—that is, partial-preterist—postmillennialism. In the final portion of its concluding chapter, “Of the Last Judgment,” the Confession delivers a clear vision of eschatological expectancy:
so will he [Christ] have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.
—The Westminster Confession of Faith 33.3
The verbiage of the prescribed prayer at the end of WCF 33.3 (“Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen”) derives from the King James Version of Revelation 22:20. Note well that Revelation 22:20 is not a mere prooftext appended to WCF 33.3. Rather, this verse’s fervent plea for the Lord to come back soon is an integral component of the Confession’s original text.5
Westminster Excludes the Partial-Preterist Interpretation of Revelation 22:20
WCF 33.3 requires pastors who subscribe to it to confess that the near coming of the Lord Jesus depicted in Revelation 22:20 refers to his second advent. Moreover, the Confession here enjoins subscribing pastors to pray in accordance with its futurist interpretation of Revelation 22:20, a verse that by all accounts portrays the same coming prophesied in 1:7, 22:7, and 22:12. Thus, the Confession rules out postmillennialism’s partial-preterist belief that Revelation 22:20 (along with 1:7, 22:7, and 22:12) refers to a supposed “judgment-coming” of Jesus in AD 70, a view that historian Francis Gumerlock could not find in any source predating the modern era.6[6]
Kenneth Gentry defends this recent interpretation in his new commentary on the Apocalypse, not least in his remarks on Revelation 22:20: “Jesus is here referring to his judgment-coming in AD 70. The whole book of Revelation has been emphasizing the Jewish oppression of Christians and promising Christ’s judgment-coming against Israel.”7 Gentry contends that the prayer in Revelation 22:20 pertained to “the beleaguered first-century Christians” and that the vindication they longed and prayed for “came in the AD 70 judgment.”8
In his comments on Revelation 22, after stating that “one of the neglected themes of the book is that the Lord is coming quickly” (22:7, 12, 20), Doug Wilson similarly strays from traditional exegesis and confessional eschatology. He claims that these predictions of Christ’s imminent coming were “fulfilled at that time [the first century]” and denies that this prophesied event could have been “20 centuries or more in coming to pass.”9 Greg Bahnsen likewise argues in his essay “Understanding the Book of Revelation” that “the main body of teaching in this book,” including each mention of eschatological nearness “at the very beginning and at the very end of the book,” relates to “John’s own day”—specifically to the time when “the Gentiles trampled Jerusalem down in A. D. 70”—rather than to “some future day.”10 David Chilton agrees that “the theme of the book” of Revelation “is not the Second Coming of Christ, but rather the Coming of Christ in judgment upon Israel.”11
Gary North and Gary DeMar, citing works on the Apocalypse by Gentry and Chilton, address the petition in Revelation 22:20 and WCF 33.3 with a striking contra-confessional assertion: “This is surely not a prayer that is appropriate today.”12 They write,
“Come quickly, Lord Jesus” … is legitimate only when the one who prays it is willing to add this justification for his prayer: “Because your church has completed her assigned task faithfully (Matthew 28:18–20), and your kingdom has become manifest to many formerly lost souls.” This is surely not a prayer that is appropriate today. (It was appropriate for John because he was praying for the covenantal coming of Jesus Christ, manifested by destruction of the Old Covenant order. His prayer was answered within a few months: the destruction of Jerusalem.)13[13]
Those who subscribe to the partial-preterist interpretation of Revelation 22:20 (along with 1:7, 22:7, and 22:12), which may include amillennialists influenced by modern postmillennialism, find themselves in disagreement with the eschatology of Westminster.
Westminster Affirms the Historic Doctrine of the Imminent Second Coming
WCF 33.3 compels pastors who subscribe to it to “be always watchful” for the near return of Christ and to pray fervently that he will “come quickly,” that is, “come soon.” Consequently, the Confession challenges the viewpoint of modern postmillennialists, who deny that the language of eschatological imminence pervading the NT relates to the parousia (the second coming).
Of course, the old-school postmillennialists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including Jonathan Edwards and the Old Princetonians, also believed that deep time lies ahead. They envisioned enough time for a future multi-generational worldwide golden era before the second advent. This belief is the hallmark of postmillennialism. Nevertheless, these eschatological forebears of modern postmillennialism did not apply a preterist framework to the NT’s teaching on the Lord’s near coming, particularly as it is taught in Revelation. Rather, they upheld Scripture’s and Westminster’s doctrine of the impending second coming (more on this in the next section).
Modern postmillennialists, on the other hand, contest the doctrine of Christ’s near return. They, unlike their forerunners, apply a preterist framework to the dozens of texts (such as Rev. 22:20) that have traditionally supported this doctrine. They also argue with more specificity and zeal than their predecessors for the necessity of deep future time. Chilton declares, “This world has tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years of increasing godliness ahead of it, before the Second Coming of Christ.”14 James Jordan elaborates provocatively,
Human history will last for at least 100,000 years, I am confident. One thousand generations is 30,000 years, and the word [“thousands” in Exod 20:6] is plural. Three thousand generations is 90,000 years, but why should the plural only imply three? If Jesus returns before that time, Satan can say, “Well, You said You would show Your mercy to thousands of generations, but You did not do so. You ended history after only a few hundred generations.”15
In his interpretation of Jesus’s repeated prophecy in Revelation 22, “I come quickly” or “I am coming soon” (vv. 7, 12, 20), Chilton acknowledges “the apostolic expectation of an imminent Coming of Christ,” yet he insists, contrary to the Confession, that this expectation concerns “not the Second Coming” but “His first-century Coming.”16 Mathison similarly states that the prophetic utterances in Revelation 22:7, 12, 20 “do not support” “the doctrine of Christ’s imminent return,” since they “refer to Christ’s first-century coming in judgment on Jerusalem, not to his personal return at the end of the age.”17
Read More
Related Posts:

From 1970 to 1989, Dr. Knight served as Professor of New Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, then the denominational seminary of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES). The 38th General Assembly of the OPC elected Dr. Knight to serve as Moderator in 1971. In 1976, Dr. Knight transferred his ministerial credentials into the RPCES, and he later came into the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) as part of the “Joining and Receiving” action taken in 1982. From 1989 to 1994, Dr. Knight served as Dean of the Faculty at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Dr. George William Knight, III, passed into glory on Monday, October 11, 2021 at his home in Lake Wylie, South Carolina. He was 89 years old, having been born on December 16, 1931 in Sanford, Florida. He is survived by his wife of 69 years, Mrs. Virginia Knight (Sergeant), their children George W. Knight, IV (Mags), Margaret A. Clifford (Ron), Jennie K. Rotherham (Simon), and Hugh Knight (Trish), and numerous grand and great-grandchildren. He is preceded in death by his son Vann Marshall Knight (1955-2013).
A graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and the Free University of Amsterdam, Dr. Knight was ordained as a Teacher of the Word by the Presbytery of Philadelphia of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in 1961. Later that year, he accepted a call as Pastor of Immanuel Presbyterian Church (OPC) in West Collingswood, New Jersey, a position which he held until 1965. From 1965 to 1970, Dr. Knight served as stated supply of Covenant Presbyterian Church (RPCES) in Naples, Florida. From 1970 to 1989, Dr. Knight served as Professor of New Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, then the denominational seminary of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES). The 38th General Assembly of the OPC elected Dr. Knight to serve as Moderator in 1971. In 1976, Dr. Knight transferred his ministerial credentials into the RPCES, and he later came into the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) as part of the “Joining and Receiving” action taken in 1982. From 1989 to 1994, Dr. Knight served as Dean of the Faculty at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
In 1994, the Knights moved to Matthews, North Carolina, and Dr. Knight accepted an invitation to teach as Adjunct Professor of New Testament at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (GPTS) in Greenville, South Carolina. At the same time, Dr. Knight transferred his ministerial credentials back to the OPC, and he took up a stated supply position at Matthews Presbyterian Church (OPC). He later accepted a call from the congregation as Teacher of the Word when the congregation called Pastor Nathan Trice in 1996. From 1993 to 1995, Dr. Knight served as President of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), and he was a frequent contributor to the organization’s publications over the years. In 1995, Dr. Knight served as President of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). In 2004, he moved from Matthews Presbyterian Church (now Resurrection Presbyterian Church) to serve as Teacher of the Word at a daughter congregation, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Charlotte, North Carolina. From 2005 to 2012, Dr. Knight served as Chairman of the Board of Trustees at GPTS.
Dr. Knight authored many books and articles (for a variety of academic and church publications). Some of his most notable books include The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women, Baker Book House 1977 (revised and republished as The Role Relationship of Men and Women: New Testament Teaching, Moody Press 1985); The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Epistles, Baker Book House 1979; Prophecy in the New Testament, Presbyterian Heritage Publications 1988; and Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC), Eerdmans 1992. Among his many essays and articles for both academic and church publications is an important work on church government, “Two Offices and Two Orders of Elders,” published in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, OPC 1986. He has also authored a number of pamphlets treating topics of New Testament theology, church government, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Knight is much beloved by the Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary community. We grieve, but not as those without hope. Rather, we grieve and rejoice in the gospel for which Dr. Knight earnestly and faithfully contended over many years. While statements of appreciation and admiration could be multiplied to fill many volumes in honor of Dr. Knight, the following three remembrances from his closest colleagues among the Faculty and Board of Trustees are included here.
I have great respect for Dr. Knight. After I had served as Chairman of the Board at Greenville Seminary for a number of years, Dr. Knight joined us. His great experience as Professor of New Testament at Covenant Seminary and Dean of the Faculty at Knox Seminary made it clear that he was the man to be our Chairman, so he and I switched places. He stayed in our home on numerous occasions, and since he was a graduate of Davidson College, he and my wife also had similar memories of that institution.  He was a most gracious, godly man whom I was honored to be able to call my friend.Mr. John Van Voorhis, Esq.Trustee Emeritus
It was a privilege beyond measure to have known and worked with Dr. Knight on the Board of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Having known him as a world class scholar was intimidating. However as I came to know him better, I came to know a man possessed of gifts and graces belonging to another world. Dr. Knight was full of the fruit of the Holy Spirit, and his character magnified the work of Christ in him. Holding his convictions strongly, he lived out those convictions with a gracious lovingkindness that endeared him to all who had the pleasure of working with him. Pastor Jeff KingswoodTrustee
Dr. Knight was the finest example of a godly, Christian gentleman I have ever known.  He combined a firm commitment to the truth of the Reformed faith with a wonderful gentleness and patience. He was a brilliant scholar with a pastor’s heart. His contribution to the nature and development of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary was inestimable. As Chairman of the Board, he exercised a profound influence corporately and more importantly as a wise counselor and friend.Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., PhD, DDPresident EmeritusProfessor of Systematic & Applied Theology
Source

The opacity, bias, and lack of accountability inherent in AI-generated knowledge raise significant concerns about discerning truth in the age of AI. The integrity of theological inquiry depends on the ability to navigate these challenges and distinguish genuine insights from distortions perpetuated by AI systems.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an indispensable aspect of contemporary society, revolutionizing various fields such as healthcare, finance, and communication. However, the rapid advancement of AI technology poses significant challenges to theological discourse, particularly concerning epistemology and the concept of the image of God. This essay aims to explore in depth the potential dangers AI presents to theology, with a specific focus on the epistemological challenges associated with discerning AI-generated knowledge and the existential threat to the human image of God.
Epistemological Challenges: Discerning AI-generated Knowledge
Epistemology, the philosophical study of knowledge, faces unprecedented challenges in the era of AI. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, they generate vast amounts of data and purported knowledge. However, discerning the reliability and validity of this knowledge presents a formidable task for theologians and philosophers alike.
One of the primary concerns in this regard is the opacity of AI algorithms. Deep learning algorithms, which underpin many AI systems, operate through complex layers of mathematical computations that are often inscrutable to human understanding. This opacity raises fundamental questions about the epistemic status of AI-generated knowledge. Can we truly trust knowledge produced by systems we do not fully comprehend?[1]
When it comes to theological matters, relying solely on AI-generated material can pose significant risks. [2] The opacity of AI algorithms presents a particular challenge in this domain, as theological truths often involve nuanced interpretations of sacred texts and complex philosophical concepts. Blindly accepting AI-generated interpretations without human oversight and theological expertise can lead to distortions or misunderstandings of religious doctrines. Additionally, since AI systems learn from existing data, they may inadvertently perpetuate theological biases present in their training datasets.[3] Therefore, it is essential for individuals to approach AI-generated theological content with caution, seeking guidance from knowledgeable theologians and engaging in critical reflection to ensure the integrity and accuracy of their religious understanding.[4]
Furthermore, the rapid pace of AI development outstrips the ability of ethical and regulatory frameworks to keep pace. As a result, there is a lack of standardized protocols for evaluating and certifying the reliability of AI-generated knowledge. This creates uncertainty regarding the epistemic warrant of AI-driven insights. How can we ensure the integrity of knowledge derived from AI systems without robust mechanisms for validation and verification?[5]
Read More
[Christ Over All] Editor’s Note: This article was written entirely using Artificial Intelligence. This piece is intended to be a “self-reflection” written by AI on the potential dangers that AI poses to theology. This article was produced by giving ChatGPT the following prompt: “Write a roughly 1600 word essay on the potential dangers that AI poses to theology, focusing specifically on epistemology and the image of God. Regarding epistemology, focus on the difficulty of determining what is real with AI-generated content. Regarding the image of God, focus on the potential abilities humans may lose by depending upon AI.” The essay was then revised by asking ChatGPT to add some paragraphs that expanded upon earlier points and also to add footnoted sources.
Related Posts: