The Error and Danger of Premillenialism

[Rescued]

Perhaps many Christians don't give it much thought, but the more I study the subject of eschatology, the more I see the effects the teaching of premillenialism has had on the evangelical, non-reformed church. It seems to have gained some ground in reformed churches too. I believe that Reformed Christians need to be more vocal in defending the truth about last things.

Can anyone who sees this reiterate what I'm saying?

 

[RamistThomist]

Most Reformed Christians I know are adamantly opposed to premillennialism. Unless you mean that Reformed Christians generally shy away from directly teaching eschatology. That might be true. I've heard maybe 8 sermons on eschatology in 17 years of being in a Reformed church.

I was even in a Reconstructionist church and even they didn't really teach it that much.

 

[Rescued]

Yes I would say it boils down to that, that we shy away from directly teaching it. The guilty silence I think allows the non-reformed to continue in their error and it robs us of much of what the apostles communicate by the Spirit about watchfulness and looking to the Lord's coming.

 

[RamistThomist]

The guilty silence I think allows the non-reformed to continue in their error

I don't know how true that is. I don't think the fate of eschatology depends on the Reformed churches "getting the word out" so that Baptists can take their cue from us.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Perhaps many Christians don't give it much thought, but the more I study the subject of eschatology, the more I see the effects the teaching of premillenialism has had on the evangelical, non-reformed church. It seems to have gained some ground in reformed churches too. I believe that Reformed Christians need to be more vocal in defending the truth about last things.

Can anyone who sees this reiterate what I'm saying?

Welcome to the board; if you have not already done so when you see this post, please fix yourself a signature in accord with board policy so folks know how to address you. See here for how: https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/

 

[rookie]

I listened to an entire series by Voddie Baucham on Revelation (available on Sermon Audio). Great series and will give much context geographically, culturally and politically on what was going on during the days John wrote the book. His arguments are very hard to find loopholes in.

 

[Rescued]

I listened to it as well but I reject his idea that the things spoken of in Revelation are not largely referring to the papal, Roman beast/antichrist. I hold firmly to the historicist understanding of prophecy.

 

[Jo_Was]

I think many lay-people are influenced by non-Reformed thought in a few matters; dispensationalism is one of those that has leaked a bit into Reformed circles. I wouldn't say it is largely that it is there, but often there are lay persons within congregations that come from different backgrounds and don't really know that dispensationalism is not the default or even dominant view in the church, and it can be eye opening for people to be educated on that matter. I eschewed talking about Revelation and the end times in my early days coming into the Reformed faith, because I grew up in a heavy dispensational setting that sat uneasy with me. But it was a helpful Sunday School series from Calvin Keller at an OPC in Chattanooga that really helped me to see that there was a whole theological discussion I just didn't know. I think the average, random person in the pew that you survey in an ARP or PCA church might not know what they think on the matter. That is of course conjecture. Many evangelicals at large (not just Reformed) have been so permeated with dispensationalism that they wholesale may not even recognize other possibilities.

 

[Don Kistler]

And yet the late great James Boice held to a dispensational eschatology. He said he came to that position after studying the minor prophets.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

And yet the late great James Boice held to a dispensational eschatology. He said he came to that position after studying the minor prophets.

I thought Dr Boice was Historic Premillennial? In that case he would have rejected Dispensationalism. In any case, one cannot subscribe to the Westminster Standards and be Dispensational.

 

[149-deleted]

I think there are many premillenialists who are very watchful and whose understanding of eschatology drives them to greater holiness and zeal for God's work. You must remember that even the disciple of a disciple of John the Beloved, Irenaeus, seems to hold some premillennial views. I am myself amillennial in my views, but haven't found that eschatology -- except in certain cases of dispensationalism and full preterism -- is a good determinator of life and holiness.

I think an amillennial view is the right one (otherwise, why would I hold it?). I have had long discussions with brethren who hold other views, and I think their understanding of the Scriptures would improve if they saw things differently. But if I were to argue from effects, then I know the argument is lost as they are men so holy in their life and walk that I should only embarass myself.

From what I know of the evangelical churches of the English West Midlands, at least, premillenialism, postmillenialism and amillenialism often happily coexist -- not in a state of ceasefire, but as a matter of secondary importance often discussed and studied. But I would also second what @Jo_Was said: quite a lot of people may have absorbed a view by osmosis, or haven't actually formed one.

 

[Chad Hutson]

the more I see the effects the teaching of premillenialism has had on the evangelical, non-reformed church.

I was raised in dispensationalism, and in certain areas of this country there is nothing else taught. The OP is correct in stating that this view has had great effects in the evangelical world. When I tell the dispensationalists in my circle of influence that the doctrine is only about 150 years old, they are usually surprised to hear that. Most of them think this doctrine was taught from the infancy of the church.
My biggest problem with dispensationalism is the disconnect between the OT and the NT (Israel and the church). They relegate large swaths of the OT to some distant point in the future after the church age ends, effectively rendering the much of the OT meaningless in the current age.
They also overemphasize the Mosaic Covenant (call it a covenant of works), while minimalizing the Abrahamic Covenant.
But as for eschatology, there seems to be an unhealthy preoccupation with the Rapture, a morbid fascination with Revelation as a roadmap to what non-Christians will endure, a misunderstanding of Daniel's prophecies, and so on. If you want to gain an audience among these people, announce a series on Revelation. If you want to hear crickets within the congregation, announce a series on Romans.

 

[B.L.]

Perhaps many Christians don't give it much thought, but the more I study the subject of eschatology, the more I see the effects the teaching of premillenialism has had on the evangelical, non-reformed church. It seems to have gained some ground in reformed churches too. I believe that Reformed Christians need to be more vocal in defending the truth about last things.

Morning friend,

What are some of the "effects" of premillenialism you have observed? How have you seen this eschatological view gain ground in reformed churches? Can you provide some specific examples?

 

[Taylor]

I thought Dr Boice was Historic Premillennial? In that case he would have rejected Dispensationalism. In any case, one cannot subscribe to the Westminster Standards and be Dispensational.

Yes, he was historic premil. As far as I am aware, paedobaptism and Dispensationalism are violently incompatible.

 

[B.L.]

As far as I am aware, paedobaptism and Dispensationalism are violently incompatible.

Here's an interesting article for your reading pleasure.

https://frame-poythress.org/presbyterianism-and-dispensationalism/

 

[Taylor]

Here's an interesting article for your reading pleasure.

https://frame-poythress.org/presbyterianism-and-dispensationalism/

I skimmed it. Does it contradict what I said anywhere? It didn’t appear to. I was aware that many of the original Dispensationalists were at first Presbyterian. However, that in no way means that the two views are compatible, or that the latter logically leads to the former.

Just asking for clarification as to why you posted the article.

 

[Wretched Man]

One ancillary effect of Premillennialism I see is people expecting God’s wrath (i.e the 7 seals) to be stored up and released at the end of the age. If some catastrophe is eventually ended without apocalyptic results, it is glossed over.

In the book, Triumph of the Lamb, I recall the author, Dennis Johnson (who is Amillennialist) making the point that the seals of wrath in the first half of the book of Revelation are cyclical - not a one time administration. (He later suggests the bowls of wrath in the latter part of the book to be the ultimate pouring out of wrath). After being persuaded by amillenialism and reading his book, I now view events, such as this current situation, with a lot more Biblical context.

 

[B.L.]

Just asking for clarification as to why you posted the article.

I found it interesting is all. Vern Poythress has written quite a bit on dispensationalism and I have always appreciated his voice on this topic. I don't think the content of the article contradicts what you wrote in any way.

One thing I would be interested in learning more about is the recovery of covenant theology within Presbyterian denominations. I had heard that the doctrine had to be recovered and that for a period in time it was all but forgotten. I believe it was Edmund Clowney who said his first Bible given to him by his Presbyterian Church was a Scofield Reference Bible, which I found fascinating. This always made me want to read more about the influence of dispensationalism in Presbyterian Churches during the last century. Perhaps a historian on the board can shed some light on this.

 

[Delahunt]

I thought Dr Boice was Historic Premillennial? In that case he would have rejected Dispensationalism. In any case, one cannot subscribe to the Westminster Standards and be Dispensational.

Having listened to Dr. Boice's disciple Dr. Richard Phillips (an amillennialist) describe Dr. Boice's position, it sounds like Dr. Boice began as a Presbyterian dispensationalist, then moved to Historic Premillennialism. Hope that helps.

 

[RamistThomist]

making the point that the seals of wrath in the first half of the book of Revelation are cyclical - not a one time administration.

That's also widely shared by historic premils. The advantage is that it is a poetic reading and explains a lot. I do think there are sequential difficulties with it.

 

[RamistThomist]

As to whether premil creates a doom and gloom view on society. If I were amil, I would still be fairly pessimistic and expect our AI overlords to crack down on us.

 

[Wretched Man]

That's also widely shared by historic premils. The advantage is that it is a poetic reading and explains a lot. I do think there are sequential difficulties with it.

I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps that is the case with some Premils, but the general view I sense many Premils have of the events described in Revelation is very futuristic. They see all of it, prophetically, sometime in the future and to occur very suddenly and rapidly. The Amils view the events described in Revelation as currently happening and progressively increasing in intensity.

 

[Delahunt]

...The Amils view the events described in Revelation as currently happening and progressively increasing in intensity.

What would be some good commentaries on this? I've got Hendrickson's More than Conquerors, what are others (from the basic to more advanced) that cover Revelation from a more Amil perspective?

 

[bookslover]

I was raised in dispensationalism, and in certain areas of this country there is nothing else taught. The OP is correct in stating that this view has had great effects in the evangelical world.

No, the OP didn't mention dispensationalism at all. The OP is concerned with premillennialism. Not the same thing at all.

Several posts in this thread show the typical confusion between premillennialism and dispensationalism. When people hear the former, they
almost automatically assume the latter.

But they are (or should be) two completely different topics. Premillennialism was around long, long before dispensationalism showed up in the 19th century. There were premillennialists at the Westminster Assembly in the 1640s (William Twisse, for example).

Let's stop confusing the two, even if you disagree with premillennialism.

Historic premillennialism good.
Dispensational premillennialism bad.

 

[Wretched Man]

What would be some good commentaries on this? I've got Hendrickson's More than Conquerors, what are others (from the basic to more advanced) that cover Revelation from a more Amil perspective?

Aside from Triumph of the Lamb by Dennis Johnson, I would strongly recommend A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger.

 

[Rescued]

Morning friend,

What are some of the "effects" of premillenialism you have observed? How have you seen this eschatological view gain ground in reformed churches? Can you provide some specific examples?

Well the more I study eschatology, the more I see the whole direction of scripture being eschatological. The looking for that blessed hope, the revealing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, the consummation of all things. But premillenialism speaks of a future age of 1000 years after the 2nd coming with an earth populated by a Jewish remnant who were converted during the supposed 7 year tribulation, and that is, after the church is raptured off the earth. So right off the bat, we divide the 2nd coming into 2 parts, a secret rapture of the church and then the actual 2nd coming. And so after the rapture, which would be seen by all that large numbers of people just disappeared off the earth, it could be calculated that 7 years later, Christ would come in the clouds to judgment. So to say God will go back to dealing with national Israel again with a rebuilt physical temple, Premillenialism once again makes a distinction between the Jew and Gentile, when they have both been called into one body, and says that God will go back to dealing with types and shadows.

Premillenialism ignores the fact that the kingdom is already here in the church, in the elect and that Christ is reigning now over His people. It also blunts the sword of prophecy in that it ignores the fact that the papacy is that antichrist warned about in the scriptures. Unfaithful ministers everywhere commit spiritual fornication with the great whore by practicing some of her false forms of worship and with their willing ignorance of her identity and character. John said that her blasphemy is written right across her forehead, because to the spiritually discerning it's obvious who the beast is. One simply has to pick up their history books and read the documentation of the woman drunken with the blood of the saints.

Other folks in this thread have already answered the who in the Reformed circles by mentioning just one example, Dr. Boice. One could also say Dr. MacArthur, even though he's not really reformed. Men of great influence.

Failure to warn God's people of the identity of antichrist is willful ignorance. Also, to ascribe to the future and a future age that which nobody would ever see until the end of time defeats the purpose of the Revelation, which was a book of comfort to the saints in all ages, and that which would give discernment and understanding to God's people in the midst of persecution.

Hope that helps.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

What would be some good commentaries on this? I've got Hendrickson's More than Conquerors, what are others (from the basic to more advanced) that cover Revelation from a more Amil perspective?

G. K. Beale's commentary is the go-to for the Amil camp. Get his condensed edition, which is still quite sizeable.

For eschatology from the Amil framework:
https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/the-promise-of-the-future-venema.html

 

[RamistThomist]

after the church is raptured off the earth.

You are confusing premillennialism with dispensationalism.

 

[RamistThomist]

Premillenialism ignores the fact that the kingdom is already here in the church, in the elect and that Christ is reigning now over His people.

Darrell Bock, a premillennialist, disagrees with you. As does Craig Blaising.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

As far as I am aware, paedobaptism and Dispensationalism are violently incompatible.

Actually many early dispensationalists were paedobaptist. Lewis. S. Chafer wrote one of the early dispensational systematic theologies. He was paedobaptist. Many of the editors of the first Scofield Bible were paedobaptists.

Of course one can argue that dispensationalism is incompatible with the best paedobaptist thought. Perhaps it is best to argue that some early dispensationalists had a watered down paedobaptism. If one fully grasps the rich doctrine of ch 7 of the WCF, they could not be dispensational.