Reformed Premil?

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
I'm sympathetic to premillennialism, especially the PreWrath view, is there any work in print from a Reformed perspective that deals with premillennialism?

Any reviews on the following?





Yours in the Lord,

jm
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The Blomberg book is hit and miss. Some of the essays don't really deal with the thesis.

Alan Kurschner is loosely Calvinistic. He blogged at AOMin for a while and sometimes blogs for Steve Hays.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
The Blomberg book is hit and miss. Some of the essays don't really deal with the thesis.

Alan Kurschner is loosely Calvinistic. He blogged at AOMin for a while and sometimes blogs for Steve Hays.
Kurschner is a nice guy. I exchanged a few emails with him 10 years ago and he was always encouraging, always friendly, always helpful.

The biggest issues I have with PreWrath is their understanding of Dan. 9.27.
 

Leslie

Puritan Board Junior
Don Carson is solidly Calvinistic and premil, but his premil is historic premil, that Christians will not be raptured out of the mess right before the second coming. So he's not pre-wrath.
 

W.C. Dean

Puritan Board Freshman
Resources from the American Presbyterian Church may be helpful. It's a small denomination that subscribes to the WCF, believes in historic premillenarian views, and practices exclusive Psalmody.


Other than looking at their material you may find it beneficial to contact one of their ministers. Their denomination is very small, but don't let that be something to be worried about. From what I know the ministers are all well within orthodoxy.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
I'm sympathetic to premillennialism, especially the PreWrath view, is there any work in print from a Reformed perspective that deals with premillennialism?

Any reviews on the following?





Yours in the Lord,

jm
The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony is one example. I haven't looked at their stuff in a long time. They have a good many things on SermonAudio now, including their quarterly magazine, Watching and Waiting. The last time I checked, many if not most of their speakers are ministers in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. I see that they have a Canadian Representative, but I'm not sure what that means unless maybe that means that he is a distributor of some of their literature. If I'm not mistaken, everything they reprint or produce is post-trib.

The Blomberg book is not really Reformed, at least not in the sense that all of the contributors are Reformed. I'm not sure if any of them are really Calvinistic, but I don't have it handy to be able to check, and the views of some of them on subjects besides premil are unknown to me. But I seem to recall that one brother (a Korean?) set forth a covenantal premil view. It also doesn't deliver on the promise of its title--it is not a "case" for HP in the way that Riddlebarger's book is a case for amil. The book originated from a conference.

J. Oliver Buswell was premil and mid-trib, which is closer to pre-wrath than either pre-trib or post-trib. He covers eschatology extensively in his Systematic Theology, which has been OOP for a good while.

James Montgomery Boice was actually premil and pre-trib. (Some say he switched to post-trib later in his ministry, but I've seen no evidence of that. If there is evidence, I'd love to see it.) His views can be seen in some of his commentaries. Daniel and the Minor Prophets come to mind. He also wrote a short work on eschatology, The Last and Future World, that is long out of print. (One former associate of his, an amillennialist, has said that wishes the book would disappear and that its disappearance would help Boice's reputation. (My words, but I recall that being the gist of what he wrote on a blog somewhere.)) Boice and some other Presbyterians of his era couldn't be considered dispensationalists because they upheld the unity of the covenant of grace, which no Dispensational can do.

Francis Schaeffer is another one, but you really have to go digging into the L'Abri recordings to learn much about his views in any detail. A few years ago, I transcribed a portion of one message where he explains his view in contrast with amil on the one hand and dispensationalism on the other. I think people just assume that he must have been post-trib because he was a Presbyterian. But that wasn't the case.

Michael P.V. Barrett is Reformed and premil and also pre-trib, or at least he was the last I knew. That will be surprising to some given his sharp criticisms of dispensationalism as seen in his series that can be found on SermonAudio. But even there he says he is premil and pre-trib but insists that doesn't make you a dispensationalist. He has a short book on Daniel, but I'm not sure that he goes into a lot of detail, and I don't know where else he might go into any detail.

Barry Horner's Future Israel is pretty much a must when researching this, even if you object to it here and there. It could have used better editing, and it is a polemical work. It isn't about premil per se so much as it is a defense of "Zionism." (From what I can ascertain, that was a common if not universal view among "Historic" premils prior to the 20th Century, (and maybe until the mid-20th Century) and it long predates Darby.) But he doesn't quote any Dispensationalists. He quotes a good many Reformed/Calvinistic premils, such as Spurgeon, Ryle, and Horatius Bonar, as well as some postmils such as Edwards and a'Brakel.

As you might expect, Spurgeon's views are scattered throughout several sermons. I can't remember to what extent he addresses it in his commentary on Matthew. See here for a good essay on Spurgeon's millennial views and here for his views on Israel. Ryle's book on the subject is Coming Events and Present Duties, recently republished by Christian Focus as Are You Ready for the End of Time?. I want to say that he delves into eschatology in some detail in his Luke commentary as well when he gets to the Olivet Discourse. (The Luke commentary is quite a bit longer than the Matthew and Mark commentaries, so I think he spends more time on it in that one.) Horatius Bonar edited the Quarterly Journal of Biblical Prophecy for several years and wrote a book entitled "Prophetical Landmarks." (You can find some of these olde books on Google Books and/or the Internet Archive.) His brother Andrew was also premil, as was Robert Murray M'Cheyne. I think Andrew Bonar wrote at least one book on the subject.

Some of the Independents who took part in the Westminster Assembly were premil. I don't know whether or not any Presbyterians were. A recent biography of Jeremiah Burroughs notes that it sort of broke down on Independent vs Presbyterian lines. Burroughs wrote a commentary on Hosea.

The late Robert Duncan Culver was Calvinistic and was an ardent premillennialist. He did not like covenant theology, however, so couldn't be considered "Reformed," especially by the standards of this group. He took no position on the timing of the rapture and believed that it was veiled for "moral" reasons.

I'm an admin for a FB group, Historic (Classic) Premillennialism, which is basically a Calvinistic group.

I think most pre-wrathers consider themselves to be dispensationalists. I know of one who considers himself to be HP. But Rosenthal says he is a dispensationalist, and Alan Kurschner is a Progressive Dispensationalist.
 
Last edited:

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony is one example. I haven't looked at their stuff in a long time. They have a good many things on SermonAudio now, including their quarterly magazine, Watching and Waiting. The last time I checked, many if not most of their speakers are ministers in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. I see that they have a Canadian Representative, but I'm not sure what that means unless maybe that means that he is a distributor of some of their literature. If I'm not mistaken, everything they reprint or produce is post-trib.

The Blomberg book is not really Reformed, at least not in the sense that all of the contributors are Reformed. I'm not sure if any of them are really Calvinistic, but I don't have it handy to be able to check, and the views of some of them on subjects besides premil are unknown to me. But I seem to recall that one brother (a Korean?) set forth a covenantal premil view. It also doesn't deliver on the promise of its title--it is not a "case" for HP in the way that Riddlebarger's book is a case for amil. The book originated from a conference.

J. Oliver Buswell was premil and mid-trib, which is closer to pre-wrath than either pre-trib or post-trib. He covers eschatology extensively in his Systematic Theology, which has been OOP for a good while.

James Montgomery Boice was actually premil and pre-trib. (Some say he switched to post-trib later in his ministry, but I've seen no evidence of that. If there is evidence, I'd love to see it.) His views can be seen in some of his commentaries. Daniel and the Minor Prophets come to mind. He also wrote a short work on eschatology, The Last and Future World, that is long out of print. (One former associate of his, an amillennialist, has said that wishes the book would disappear and that its disappearance would help Boice's reputation. (My words, but I recall that being the gist of what he wrote on a blog somewhere.)) Boice and some other Presbyterians of his era couldn't be considered dispensationalists because they upheld the unity of the covenant of grace, which no Dispensational can do.

Francis Schaeffer is another one, but you really have to go digging into the L'Abri recordings to learn much about his views in any detail. A few years ago, I transcribed a portion of one message where he explains his view in contrast with amil on the one hand and dispensationalism on the other. I think people just assume that he must have been post-trib because he was a Presbyterian. But that wasn't the case.

Michael P.V. Barrett is Reformed and premil and also pre-trib, or at least he was the last I knew. That will be surprising to some given his sharp criticisms of dispensationalism as seen in his series that can be found on SermonAudio. But even there he says he is premil and pre-trib but insists that doesn't make you a dispensationalist. He has a short book on Daniel, but I'm not sure that he goes into a lot of detail, and I don't know where else he might go into any detail.

Barry Horner's Future Israel is pretty much a must when researching this, even if you object to it here and there. It could have used better editing, and it is a polemical work. It isn't about premil per se so much as it is a defense of "Zionism." (From what I can ascertain, that was a common if not universal view among "Historic" premils prior to the 20th Century, (and maybe until the mid-20th Century) and it long predates Darby.) But he doesn't quote any Dispensationalists. He quotes a good many Reformed/Calvinistic premils, such as Spurgeon, Ryle, and Horatius Bonar, as well as some postmils such as Edwards and a'Brakel.

As you might expect, Spurgeon's views are scattered throughout several sermons. I can't remember to what extent he addresses it in his commentary on Matthew. See here for a good essay on Spurgeon's millennial views and here for his views on Israel. Ryle's book on the subject is Coming Events and Present Duties, recently republished by Christian Focus as Are You Ready for the End of Time?. I want to say that he delves into eschatology in some detail in his Luke commentary as well when he gets to the Olivet Discourse. (The Luke commentary is quite a bit longer than the Matthew and Mark commentaries, so I think he spends more time on it in that one.) Horatius Bonar edited the Quarterly Journal of Biblical Prophecy for several years and wrote a book entitled "Prophetical Landmarks." (You can find some of these olde books on Google Books and/or the Internet Archive.) His brother Andrew was also premil, as was Robert Murray M'Cheyne. I think Andrew Bonar wrote at least one book on the subject.

Some of the Independents who took part in the Westminster Assembly were premil. (I don't know whether or not any Presbyterians were. A recent biography of Jeremiah Burroughs notes that it sort of broke down on Independent vs Presbyterian lines.) Burroughs wrote a commentary on Hosea.

The late Robert Duncan Culver was Calvinistic and was an ardent premillennialist. He did not like covenant theology, however, so couldn't be considered "Reformed," especially by the standards of this group. He took no position on the timing of the rapture and believed that it was veiled for "moral" reasons.

I'm an admin for a FB group, Historic (Classic) Premillennialism, which is basically a Calvinistic group.

I think most pre-wrathers consider themselves to be dispensationalists. I know of one who considers himself to be HP. But Rosenthal says he is a dispensationalist, and Alan Kurschner is a Progressive Dispensationalist.
Yikes! lol

Thanks for the info.
 

Jake

Puritan Board Junior
Resources from the American Presbyterian Church may be helpful. It's a small denomination that subscribes to the WCF, believes in historic premillenarian views, and practices exclusive Psalmody.


Other than looking at their material you may find it beneficial to contact one of their ministers. Their denomination is very small, but don't let that be something to be worried about. From what I know the ministers are all well within orthodoxy.
They also have amended versions of the Westminster Standards, largely to reflect premillenialism: http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/constitution/

For example, here is their version of WLC Q 191

Q. 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?

A.
In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come,) we pray for the return of Jesus Christ and the establishing of his glorious and everlasting kingdom, the lifting of the curse, the bringing in of everalsting righteousness, the resurrection of the just and the translation of the living saints, and the fulfilment of all those things that anticipate that great and glorious Day of the Lord such as the propogation of the gospel to all the ends of the earth and the calling out of all the elect, the restoration of the Jews, the destruction of the wicked, the avenging of the saints, and whatever else must first come to pass.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
They also have amended versions of the Westminster Standards, largely to reflect premillenialism: http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/constitution/

For example, here is their version of WLC Q 191

Q. 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?

A.
In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come,) we pray for the return of Jesus Christ and the establishing of his glorious and everlasting kingdom, the lifting of the curse, the bringing in of everalsting righteousness, the resurrection of the just and the translation of the living saints, and the fulfilment of all those things that anticipate that great and glorious Day of the Lord such as the propogation of the gospel to all the ends of the earth and the calling out of all the elect, the restoration of the Jews, the destruction of the wicked, the avenging of the saints, and whatever else must first come to pass.
I think their confession is probably derived from, if not identical to, the Bible Presbyterian Church, from which they separated years ago.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Have you read Regnum Caelorum by Hill? Fun counter-evidence regarding the beliefs of the early church.
He does a good job rebutting global claims like "The Early Church Was Premil." One of the problems with such a claim is that there is no such thing as "The Early Church" (TM).

A more modest proposal is actually set forth by both Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. They say premillennial sounding things but acknowledge others differ with them. Same with Methodius and Hippolytus.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Have you read Regnum Caelorum by Hill? Fun counter-evidence regarding the beliefs of the early church.
Yes, I have read it. If I recall he argues that only a small portion of the early church believed, that portion of the church had other doctrinal issues and premil was later rejected by the church at large.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Yes, I have read it. If I recall he argues that only a small portion of the early church believed, that portion of the church had other doctrinal issues and premil was later rejected by the church at large.
Right. His argument only refutes the claim that "The Early Church" (whatever that means) was premil. Individual fathers most certainly were.
 

Spurgeonite

Puritan Board Freshman
Quick question, can someone hold to pre-trib premillennialism and not hold to dispensational theology?
Is pre-tib compatible in anyway with covenant theology? or is it inseparable from dispensationalism?
 

Spurgeonite

Puritan Board Freshman
No. To hold to a pre trib rapture, you have to believe that the church is raptured so that God can continue his program with Israel. But in Reformed theology one does not make a Church - Israel distinction.
Yeah I thought so, just didn't want to assume that someone is dispensational just from hearing them affirm pre-trib, thanks for the clarification.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
Quick question, can someone hold to pre-trib premillennialism and not hold to dispensational theology?
Is pre-tib compatible in anyway with covenant theology? or is it inseparable from dispensationalism?
Many dispensationalists, especially of the classic or traditional sort, (in other words, not progressive) have basically argued that the pre-trib rapture is God "getting the church out of the way" so He can go back to dealing with Israel. Traditionally, these folks have an eschatology (or ecclesiology) where Israel and the Church continue to be separated or continue to be two peoples even in glory. Obviously, that is incompatible with covenant theology.

There have been some who have insisted that they both uphold the unity of the Covenant of Grace and hold to pre-trib, mid-trib, or something else where at least part of the church is raptured prior to the Second Coming. This includes what one might term broad evangelical or fundamentalist Presbyterians (and others) of the past, such as Boice, Schaeffer, Buswell, etc as noted above. Whether or not you can really be covenantal and hold to these views, I'd think a man would have a very hard time getting ordained by any NAPARC presbytery today no matter what his view of the Sabbath or anything else is. I wouldn't be surprised if one would have a hard time even in some EPC presbyteries. (I refer to North American Presbyterian denominations, not being familiar with the churches in Oz. Although these views would be OK (if not expected) in the Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore.)
 

Spurgeonite

Puritan Board Freshman
Many dispensationalists, especially of the classic or traditional sort, (in other words, not progressive) have basically argued that the pre-trib rapture is God "getting the church out of the way" so He can go back to dealing with Israel. Traditionally, these folks have an eschatology (or ecclesiology) where Israel and the Church continue to be separated or continue to be two peoples even in glory. Obviously, that is incompatible with covenant theology.

There have been some who have insisted that they both uphold the unity of the Covenant of Grace and hold to pre-trib, mid-trib, or something else where at least part of the church is raptured prior to the Second Coming. This includes what one might term broad evangelical or fundamentalist Presbyterians (and others) of the past, such as Boice, Schaeffer, Buswell, etc as noted above. Whether or not you can really be covenantal and hold to these views, I'd think a man would have a very hard time getting ordained by any NAPARC presbytery today no matter what his view of the Sabbath or anything else is. I wouldn't be surprised if one would have a hard time even in some EPC presbyteries. (I refer to North American Presbyterian denominations, not being familiar with the churches in Oz. Although these views would be OK (if not expected) in the Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore.)
That was a helpful answer thanks. Even the way you worded it, "getting the church out of the way so He can go back to dealing with Israel." just makes me find dispensationalism even more strange than I thought before.
 

Unique Name

Puritan Board Freshman
I wish I could see some reliable statistics on how many people believe in the church/israel distinction. I am convinced most American evangelicals believe in the dichotomy, but just don't care enough to work out the implications. They read the psalms and apply it to their life, but when they go to church they hear MacArthur tell them that very psalm applies to Israel in the millennium.
 
Last edited:
Top