Seeking Church history books during the time of Revelation plus other resources

Status
Not open for further replies.

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
Hello, beloved. I am looking for scholarly treatments of the early days of the Church. Particularly, from the time of Christ's Crucifixion spanning through the reigns of Nero until Domitian. I am studying Revelation and I would like to get a feel of the time period that it was authored during. I am also open to any books/resources that will help me wrestle with Revelation. The commentaries I have to work with are Hendriksen's More than Conquerors, Beale's shorter treatment, John Gill, Poole, Henry, Jamieson Fausset & Brown, Johann Bengel's New Testament Word Studies/Gnomon, and IVP's 21st Century Edition of the New Bible Commentary.
I also have Walvoord's commentary which I don't agree with much of what he wrote. I am considering à Brakel's commentary.
I will also be studying the Eschatology sections in my many ST volumes.
Are there any particular books on eschatology and Revelation that you have really profited from? I would really like to refine my eschatological beliefs. Thanks and I pray the LORD's sovereign grace be upon each of you.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hello Robert,

Eschatology is the one field of doctrine that is still in flux. Of the earlier authors almost everyone failed to get it right – one exception to the adage “the older writers are generally the sounder”. Things started becoming clearer in the 19th century with William Milligan, who originated of the idealist view (though Augustine had insights), but with WM it was primitive, and not sound – although a start in the right direction. G.K. Beale (and others) developed the “modified idealist” or eclectic view of current Amillennialism which corrects Milligan and is far more faithful to the Biblical vision. I've written a book, a section of which deals with eschatology and Revelation (see attachment below on Babylon), and I build a lot on Beale and those of like mind with him.

The section "Babylon" below, mind you, is not straight exposition, but part of a genre visionary adventure nonfiction, and a lot of other pertinent material is included.
 

Attachments

  • Babylon — In End Times Eschatology.pdf
    945.6 KB · Views: 0

Scottish Presbyterian

Puritan Board Freshman
No, not really I'm afraid. It covers the period from the reformation onwards (if I understand you correctly to mean expounding the views of the church as they were at that time).
 

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
Hello Robert,

Eschatology is the one field of doctrine that is still in flux. Of the earlier authors almost everyone failed to get it right – one exception to the adage “the older writers are generally the sounder”. Things started becoming clearer in the 19th century with William Milligan, who originated of the idealist view (though Augustine had insights), but with WM it was primitive, and not sound – although a start in the right direction. G.K. Beale (and others) developed the “modified idealist” or eclectic view of current Amillennialism which corrects Milligan and is far more faithful to the Biblical vision. I've written a book, a section of which deals with eschatology and Revelation (see attachment below on Babylon), and I build a lot on Beale and those of like mind with him.

The section "Babylon" below, mind you, is not straight exposition, but part of a genre visionary adventure nonfiction, and a lot of other pertinent material is included.
Thank you for your response and the resource. I agree that eschatology is not concrete. I know my personal eschatology develops and shifts quite often. I have Beale and Hendriksen on Revelation. They develop the idealist position well. I am going to dive into A Brakel's commentary soon. I am interested in learning more on post-millenial historicism.
 

Scottish Presbyterian

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello Robert,

Eschatology is the one field of doctrine that is still in flux. Of the earlier authors almost everyone failed to get it right – one exception to the adage “the older writers are generally the sounder”. Things started becoming clearer in the 19th century with William Milligan, who originated of the idealist view (though Augustine had insights), but with WM it was primitive, and not sound – although a start in the right direction. G.K. Beale (and others) developed the “modified idealist” or eclectic view of current Amillennialism which corrects Milligan and is far more faithful to the Biblical vision. I've written a book, a section of which deals with eschatology and Revelation (see attachment below on Babylon), and I build a lot on Beale and those of like mind with him.

The section "Babylon" below, mind you, is not straight exposition, but part of a genre visionary adventure nonfiction, and a lot of other pertinent material is included.

Can we really say they failed to get it right, if we just mean we may disagree with them? Obviously it's an area where some are prone to making their own prophecies, and for those we can say they failed to get it right (when the thing follows not nor comes to pass). But that aside it's just different people with different views of a question that doesn't enter into the substance of the faith, and if I understand the OP correctly they want to read those views from more ancient times. Even premillenialism (non-Dispensational) is commonly accepted as being well within the pale of Reformed orthodoxy, though historically a minority view. While I disagree with Pre-mil eschatology, I'd prefer to state just that than say they failed to get it right. I doubt it will be an entirely settled question until Christ returns (on the last day).
 

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
Can we really say they failed to get it right, if we just mean we may disagree with them? Obviously it's an area where some are prone to making their own prophecies, and for those we can say they failed to get it right (when the thing follows not nor comes to pass). But that aside it's just different people with different views of a question that doesn't enter into the substance of the faith, and if I understand the OP correctly they want to read those views from more ancient times. Even premillenialism (non-Dispensational) is commonly accepted as being well within the pale of Reformed orthodoxy, though historically a minority view. While I disagree with Pre-mil eschatology, I'd prefer to state just that than say they failed to get it right. I doubt it will be an entirely settled question until Christ returns (on the last day).
While I appreciate both of your responses, please don't derail the thread. This isn't a thread to debate eschatological views. There have been plenty on that as is. This is a thread for educational resources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top