Book Recommendations?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"William The Baptist"

"William The Baptist"

Puritan Board Freshman
I was wondering if anyone had any deep/detailed book recommendations that really explain differing views on the realized millennium?

I've read a few different "introductory" books, if you will, and wanted to dig in deeper.

I've read a book on Scofield, some Gary Demar, and Jay Adams, and currently reading one called "Understanding Dispensationalists". I've ordered another Gary Demar book, but so far they are not as detailed as I want to go now. I've heard good things about Gentry (and listened to some of his teachings).

This is my current study, and I want to do it thoroughly before I tackle anything new in the time to come. :) Plus, its pretty enjoyable and so utterly fascinating to read what I was supposed to believe in times past, but was never really taught... and no one ever answered my questions! Heh.
 
"William The Baptist" said:
I was wondering if anyone had any deep/detailed book recommendations that really explain differing views on the realized millennium?

I've read a few different "introductory" books, if you will, and wanted to dig in deeper.

I've read a book on Scofield, some Gary Demar, and Jay Adams, and currently reading one called "Understanding Dispensationalists". I've ordered another Gary Demar book, but so far they are not as detailed as I want to go now. I've heard good things about Gentry (and listened to some of his teachings).

This is my current study, and I want to do it thoroughly before I tackle anything new in the time to come. :) Plus, its pretty enjoyable and so utterly fascinating to read what I was supposed to believe in times past, but was never really taught... and no one ever answered my questions! Heh.
Click to expand...

One book I found very useful as a young Christian was Loraine Boettner's The millennium. It focuses primarily on amillenialism and dispensationalism.
 
The Bible Prophecy Handbook by Carol Smith does a real good job explaining the topic. It's not a big book, but it's very informative. And that's what really matters.
 
Leah,

If you want deeper eschatology books from different perspectives, it would probably be best to read different books from different perspectives.

For the Amill view: The Bible and the Future by Hoekema; The Promise of the Future by Venema, A Case for Amillenialism by Riddlebarger are a few

For Postmil view: The Puritan Hope by Murray (I'm sure there are others, but that is the one I know of)
 
Romans922 said:
Leah,

If you want deeper eschatology books from different perspectives, it would probably be best to read different books from different perspectives.

For the Amill view: The Bible and the Future by Hoekema; The Promise of the Future by Venema, A Case for Amillenialism by Riddlebarger are a few

For Postmil view: The Puritan Hope by Murray (I'm sure there are others, but that is the one I know of)
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks! I guess you understood my question rightly. I was wanting different books on the different views. :) Just a wild guess, but do you hold to the Amill position?
 
I enjoy the "4 views" or "5 views on" books. They have several on the rapture, millennium, revelation and end times.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond: Stanley N. Gundry,Darrell L. Bock,Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.,Robert B. Strimple,Craig A. Blaising: 9780310201434: Amazon.com: Books

The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Spectrum Multiview Book): George Eldon Ladd,Robert G. Clouse,Anthony A. Hoekema: 9780877847946: Amazon.com: Books
 
"William The Baptist" said:
I was wondering if anyone had any deep/detailed book recommendations that really explain differing views on the realized millennium?

I've read a few different "introductory" books, if you will, and wanted to dig in deeper.

I've read a book on Scofield, some Gary Demar, and Jay Adams, and currently reading one called "Understanding Dispensationalists". I've ordered another Gary Demar book, but so far they are not as detailed as I want to go now. I've heard good things about Gentry (and listened to some of his teachings).

This is my current study, and I want to do it thoroughly before I tackle anything new in the time to come. :) Plus, its pretty enjoyable and so utterly fascinating to read what I was supposed to believe in times past, but was never really taught... and no one ever answered my questions! Heh.
Click to expand...

Check out Mongerism.com
 
I highly recommend the book "An Eschatology of Victory" by J. Marcellus Kik
 
There is this this site postmillennialism.com where gentry has some articles and interacted with the amill position more than he could have in the severval views book.
 
Last edited:
"William The Baptist" said:
Romans922 said:
Leah,

If you want deeper eschatology books from different perspectives, it would probably be best to read different books from different perspectives.

For the Amill view: The Bible and the Future by Hoekema; The Promise of the Future by Venema, A Case for Amillenialism by Riddlebarger are a few

For Postmil view: The Puritan Hope by Murray (I'm sure there are others, but that is the one I know of)
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks! I guess you understood my question rightly. I was wanting different books on the different views. :) Just a wild guess, but do you hold to the Amill position?
Click to expand...

In coming to clearly understand covenant theology (and realized millennium) only a few years ago, here's a few things to remember:

1) The Westminster Standards Westminster Confession of Faith are implicitly covenant theology, they define what it is, in the main, because that's what they are. They were not written in opposition to what is now called dispensationalism because there was no such thing on the radar screen even at that time.

2) "Amillennialism" was not even a term used at that time because it was not a peculiar view being distinguished from something else (e.g. dispensationalism). That term was one created by dispensationalism in its misunderstanding of the historical view. I say "misunderstanding" charitably because the "a" does not mean we do not believe in a millennium, which is even misunderstood to this day. The millennium is realized in Christ, from His first until His second coming, that's the millennium time the Bible speaks of, and it is very real, and very centered on the Kingdom of God, spiritually ruled by Christ until His physical return.

3) Believe it or not, at the time of the Westminster Standards, what is now called "amill" was then occasionally called "postmill" because their substance is so similar, e.g. Christ returns after the millennial age spoken of in Scripture.

The best material to understand realized millennium, what it is, and some variations within it:

1) The Westminster Standards
(The PCA blue notebook format is very useful for notes and reference, Scripture proofs at the bottom of every page)
CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER COF & CATECHISMS 3

2) A Case for Amillennialism, Kim Riddlebarger
Christianbook.com: A Case for Amillennialism: Kim Riddlebarger: 9780801064357

3) An excellent concise summary and chart, within the context of the Westminster Standards is in Mr. Williamson's Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes
CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER CONFESSION FOR STUDY CLASSES

4) For a chart comparison that implicitly shows why covenant theology does not (at all) lead to dispensationalism, but toward realized millennium
http://www.faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm


Then, if you wish further study that will lead you to the (less important) variations within realized millennium:

3. Simple Overview of Covenant Theology. McMahon. A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology | The Puritan Shop
4. Covenant Theology Made Easy, McMahon. Covenant Theology Made Easy - by C. Matthew McMahon | The Puritan Shop
5. The Manifold Wisdom of God Seen in Covenant Theology. George Walker. The Manifold Wisdom of God Seen in Covenant Theology - by George Walker (1581-1651) | The Puritan Shop
6. The Covenant of God. Thomas Blake. The Covenant of God | The Puritan Shop
7. The Covenant of Life Opened. Samuel Rutherford. The Covenant of Life Opened | The Puritan Shop
8. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. Herman Witsius. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete ... - Herman Witsius - Google Books

Presbyterianism has always been realized millennium, amillennial, leaning toward premillennialism at times.

Don't get lost in the variations, understand the essential reality of Christ's Kingdom now.... and not yet,
and all of God's Word applicable, to all of life, now, and until the end of this age.:)
 
Last edited:
Another reason what is termed amillennialism and postmillennialism are similar in important ways, and very different from dispensationalism, and the millennial views that flow from that:

A common resurrection of the just and the unjust at the Second Coming.

There is no great escape for God's people until then, any more than there has been for the people of God who have gone through great difficulty, tribulation and persecution before us (just think of the Apostles!).

And there is no separate plan for redemption for people who have some Jewish ancestry versus everyone else- it has always been about redemption by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, for all those the Lord has chosen, from every tribe nation, kindred and tongue.

Always.

Realized millennium is about that.
 
Hank Hanegraaff's The apocalypse code. I have just read half of the book, and thus far it has been good, in case some one has been confused by Tim LaHaye's Left behind series. I'm not sure is Hanegraaff's views on the line with the forum's line, though.
 
In regards to what Scott wrote in regards to the WCF and it's amill stance of eschatology, I guess I would beg to differ. The WCF makes no pronouncement in these regards, barely even scathing the surface of any eschatological doctrine. It is my opinion that there were reasons why the divines did not do anything more than broach the topic, the biggest being the lack of argument within the doctrine itself. It seems that te amill position was so pervasive in that time, why make a full-fledged argument for it when nobody really argued against such a doctrine. Same for the doctrine of the resurrection of the believer and te timing of that moment. Thus, I believe the WCF needs expanded, if not amended.
 
Question 191 points to fairly optimistic eschatology:

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
Click to expand...

There is no indication of a gap, of 1,000 years or otherwise, in WCF Chapter 23 between our Lord's Second Advent and the judgment:

CHAPTER 33
Of the Last Judgment

1. God hath appointed a day, 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.

2. The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

3. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will he 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.
Click to expand...
 
Dordts5 said:
In regards to what Scott wrote in regards to the WCF and it's amill stance of eschatology, I guess I would beg to differ. The WCF makes no pronouncement in these regards, barely even scathing the surface of any eschatological doctrine. It is my opinion that there were reasons why the divines did not do anything more than broach the topic, the biggest being the lack of argument within the doctrine itself. It seems that te amill position was so pervasive in that time, why make a full-fledged argument for it when nobody really argued against such a doctrine. Same for the doctrine of the resurrection of the believer and te timing of that moment. Thus, I believe the WCF needs expanded, if not amended.
Click to expand...

Really, and I think you are saying this if I'm understanding you correctly, a realized millennium was "the only game in town" at the time of the Westminster Divines, there was no dispensationalism and the millenial views that flowed from it. The latter is a modern invention, an incorrect one. Add to that the confusion of what later became termed "a" millennial was at the time of the Divines known as postmillennial, the summary of the doctrine of Scripture that the millennium described in Scripture followed the ascension of our Lord to Heaven, after His first coming, until the time of His return- the trials and tribulations of His church between (now).

I don't think the Divines needed to add more (or that we need to do that today) because they were only stating what was clear biblically to all:

1) the Lord will return
2) there will be a general resurrection (of the just and unjust)
3) the wrath of God will be poured out on sin

There are enough differences on other nuances still today, so I think it wise to bind by Confession only what was clear.
2)

What's clear is that that what are now called amillennialism and premillenialism are both compatible with the Confession, historic premillennialism might be acceptable but only after careful evaluation.
Modern dispensational premillennialism would not be compatible and is serious error.
 
Scott1 said:
Dordts5 said:
In regards to what Scott wrote in regards to the WCF and it's amill stance of eschatology, I guess I would beg to differ. The WCF makes no pronouncement in these regards, barely even scathing the surface of any eschatological doctrine. It is my opinion that there were reasons why the divines did not do anything more than broach the topic, the biggest being the lack of argument within the doctrine itself. It seems that te amill position was so pervasive in that time, why make a full-fledged argument for it when nobody really argued against such a doctrine. Same for the doctrine of the resurrection of the believer and te timing of that moment. Thus, I believe the WCF needs expanded, if not amended.
Click to expand...

Really, and I think you are saying this if I'm understanding you correctly, a realized millennium was "the only game in town" at the time of the Westminster Divines, there was no dispensationalism and the millenial views that flowed from it. The latter is a modern invention, an incorrect one. Add to that the confusion of what later became termed "a" millennial was at the time of the Divines known as postmillennial, the summary of the doctrine of Scripture that the millennium described in Scripture followed the ascension of our Lord to Heaven, after His first coming, until the time of His return- the trials and tribulations of His church between (now).

I don't think the Divines needed to add more (or that we need to do that today) because they were only stating what was clear biblically to all:

1) the Lord will return
2) there will be a general resurrection (of the just and unjust)
3) the wrath of God will be poured out on sin

There are enough differences on other nuances still today, so I think it wise to bind by Confession only what was clear.
2)

What's clear is that that what are now called amillennialism and premillenialism are both compatible with the Confession, historic premillennialism might be acceptable but only after careful evaluation.
Modern dispensational premillennialism would not be compatible and is serious error.
Click to expand...

Yes Scott, that is exactly what saying, at least what you surmise in your first sentence. The issue is that it wasn't like there were many views of eschatology, because there weren't. There may have been more than one, but the dominant view was just as you said, a millennial view that was predominantly much like today's amill view.

In my opinion, because the divines weren't so concerned with eschatology because it was not a divisive issue like many of the other systematic topics of the WCF. I think it might surprise how many Reformed Elders, ruling and teaching like, that take exception to a futuristic understanding of the Parousia, as well as the verbiage of the last chapter dealing with the Resurrection of the Dead. Not only do they hold exception to the verbiage in the WCF, but also to the verbiage in the Creeds, the Apostles Creed especial. Within the Reformed camp some hold to futurism, some to preterism, and others to "realized preterism." Within the camp of the realized folk the thoughts are so scattered that there really isn't one, solid core position, but most are now extending their thought into Universalism and Annilationism. Yes, the WCF does need to be reconsidered in regards to its verbiage. Eschatology has never really been a soteriological issue within Reformed doctrine, but it is part of soteriology and our view of eschatology effects our view of the complete Cross Work of Christ, as well as His Priestly office. In my opinion, I believe the WCF has some of it wrong and we should all be willing to concede to the fact that the divines could have worded it wrongly.
 
Scott1 said:
What's clear is that that what are now called amillennialism and premillenialism are both compatible with the Confession, historic premillennialism might be acceptable but only after careful evaluation.
Modern dispensational premillennialism would not be compatible and is serious error.
Click to expand...

I believe what would be unconfessional is futurism and preterism, both of which were teachings to remove the attention of the Papacy as part of the counter reformation. Dispentational Premillenialism is futurist and most modern flavors of what is known today as "postmillenialism" is preterist. The only two view that could be compatible with most reformed confessions (at least from my understanding) would be Historicism and Idealism.
 
Last edited:
Scott1 said:
"William The Baptist" said:
Romans922 said:
Leah,

If you want deeper eschatology books from different perspectives, it would probably be best to read different books from different perspectives.

For the Amill view: The Bible and the Future by Hoekema; The Promise of the Future by Venema, A Case for Amillenialism by Riddlebarger are a few

For Postmil view: The Puritan Hope by Murray (I'm sure there are others, but that is the one I know of)
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks! I guess you understood my question rightly. I was wanting different books on the different views. :) Just a wild guess, but do you hold to the Amill position?
Click to expand...

In coming to clearly understand covenant theology (and realized millennium) only a few years ago, here's a few things to remember:

1) The Westminster Standards Westminster Confession of Faith are implicitly covenant theology, they define what it is, in the main, because that's what they are. They were not written in opposition to what is now called dispensationalism because there was no such thing on the radar screen even at that time.

2) "Amillennialism" was not even a term used at that time because it was not a peculiar view being distinguished from something else (e.g. dispensationalism). That term was one created by dispensationalism in its misunderstanding of the historical view. I say "misunderstanding" charitably because the "a" does not mean we do not believe in a millennium, which is even misunderstood to this day. The millennium is realized in Christ, from His first until His second coming, that's the millennium time the Bible speaks of, and it is very real, and very centered on the Kingdom of God, spiritually ruled by Christ until His physical return.

3) Believe it or not, at the time of the Westminster Standards, what is now called "amill" was then occasionally called "postmill" because their substance is so similar, e.g. Christ returns after the millennial age spoken of in Scripture.

The best material to understand realized millennium, what it is, and some variations within it:

1) The Westminster Standards
(The PCA blue notebook format is very useful for notes and reference, Scripture proofs at the bottom of every page)
CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER COF & CATECHISMS 3

2) A Case for Amillennialism, Kim Riddlebarger
Christianbook.com: A Case for Amillennialism: Kim Riddlebarger: 9780801064357

3) An excellent concise summary and chart, within the context of the Westminster Standards is in Mr. Williamson's Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes
CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER CONFESSION FOR STUDY CLASSES

4) For a chart comparison that implicitly shows why covenant theology does not (at all) lead to dispensationalism, but toward realized millennium
DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY


Then, if you wish further study that will lead you to the (less important) variations within realized millennium:

3. Simple Overview of Covenant Theology. McMahon. A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology | The Puritan Shop
4. Covenant Theology Made Easy, McMahon. Covenant Theology Made Easy - by C. Matthew McMahon | The Puritan Shop
5. The Manifold Wisdom of God Seen in Covenant Theology. George Walker. The Manifold Wisdom of God Seen in Covenant Theology - by George Walker (1581-1651) | The Puritan Shop
6. The Covenant of God. Thomas Blake. The Covenant of God | The Puritan Shop
7. The Covenant of Life Opened. Samuel Rutherford. The Covenant of Life Opened | The Puritan Shop
8. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. Herman Witsius. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete ... - Herman Witsius - Google Books

Presbyterianism has always been realized millennium, amillennial, leaning toward premillennialism at times.

Don't get lost in the variations, understand the essential reality of Christ's Kingdom now.... and not yet,
and all of God's Word applicable, to all of life, now, and until the end of this age.:)
Click to expand...
Scott1 said:
Another reason what is termed amillennialism and postmillennialism are similar in important ways, and very different from dispensationalism, and the millennial views that flow from that:

A common resurrection of the just and the unjust at the Second Coming.

There is no great escape for God's people until then, any more than there has been for the people of God who have gone through great difficulty, tribulation and persecution before us (just think of the Apostles!).

And there is no separate plan for redemption for people who have some Jewish ancestry versus everyone else- it has always been about redemption by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, for all those the Lord has chosen, from every tribe nation, kindred and tongue.

Always.

Realized millennium is about that.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for your helpful answers, Scott. One of the books I recently finished was really driving home the point of how important a "realized" millennium is. Thank you for the resource recommendations, I really appreciate it. I actually have one of the books on my bookshelf, "The Covenant of God". :)
 
Wow! That's SOOO GREAT!!! I'm printing this to teach all the Dispensational's around me!

I noticed this is Lewis Sperry Chafer's version of Dispensational. What would be REALLY helpful is if someone compared John MacArthur's version to Hodge's. Everytime I try the "Dispensational messes up salvation" they pull the "not MacArthur's version" :p Ack!



Ask Mr. Religion said:
The link to the chart in Scott's post above should be as follows:

DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY

AMR
Click to expand...
 
Building on what Fogetaboutit has said, I would say most postmillennial guys would be preterist these days. I think I tried posting some of my thoughts earlier this evening but I'll repost in case something got messed up. During my earlier years in Bible college, I didn't think either view was even defendable. After going through most of Gentry's view in Four Views on the Book of Revelation by Zondervan, David Chilton's Paradise Restored and Days of Vengeance (both of which are obtainable online), and the objection chapters in Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion (which is also available online), I would say both are amply defendable.
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Well, there's "leaky dispensationalism".

See the summary at the end of this bio sketch of MacArthur:
John MacArthur

And this:
John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

AMR
Click to expand...

:lol: That's just such a funny term... leaky dispensationalist! It makes me think its broken or something...


Romans922 said:
Amil is the only real biblical position Leah. Don't read about it, just believe me, right? :p:book2::flamingscot:
Click to expand...
:detective: my only objection to your most wise assertion is... after growing up in churches who skirted all my questions and didn't even fully teach their own views, I feel compelled to investigate the scriptures of my own accord! ;) LOL!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

passingpilgrim
  • Locked
Puritan eschatology book recommendations
Replies
8
Views
3K
JM
JM
S
  • Locked
Wanted: Covenant Theology Intro/Overview Book Recommendations
Replies
19
Views
2K
JTB.SDG
JTB.SDG
sgemmen9
  • Locked
Book recommendations on the Covenant of Works
Replies
1
Views
1K
py3ak
py3ak
George Bailey
  • Locked
NCT Source/Author Recommendations?
Replies
9
Views
2K
nnatew24
nnatew24
Miller
  • Locked
Book Suggestions
Replies
9
Views
3K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Back
Top