Are the majority of Reformed Christians Amillennial?

[English Anglican]

I ask because most of the Reformed writers I read like RC Sproul are, but then you get some like John Macarthur who are dispensational (which RC always winds him up about).

 

[jimmyjimmy]

YES, because we are correct in all doctrinal matters, and we aren't afraid to say so.

 

[JM]

John MacArthur is not Reformed.

 

[RC1970]

I ask because most of the Reformed writers I read like RC Sproul are, but then you get some like John Macarthur who are dispensational (which RC always winds him up about).

I have found that most are either Amill or Postmill. It's interesting though, that Dispensationalism came out of the Reformed camp. Go figure.

 

[DeaconDean]

I guess I'm the exception. I'm not only Dispensational (not full Dispensational though for there are a few things I disagree with), but also Pre-Mill.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[English Anglican]

John MacArthur is not Reformed.

In which case, why does he teach on Reformed theology, and why does RC Sproul always invite him to his Ligonier conferences?

 

[JM]

In which case, why does he teach on Reformed theology, and why does RC Sproul always invite him to his Ligonier conferences?

Johnny Mac has Calvinistic soteriology but he is a Dispensationalist. I do not believe the Ligonier Conference is anything more than a conference for Calvinists with an emphasis on expository preaching. To be Reformed you would have to confess one or more of the Reformed Confessions and three points stand out across the board;

1) Calvinistic soteriology
2) covenant theology
3) and the Regulative Principle of Worship

I believe these three elements can be found in all paedobaptist confessions, and the First and the Second London Baptist Confessions. Guys like MacArthur and Piper are Calvinists but would not agree with covenant theology (paedo or 1689 federalism) or the Regulative Principle.

Hope that helps.

jm
PS: For years I avoided using 'Reformed' before Baptist but eventually gave in. I'm do confess the 1689 in it's entirety. It took years but I eventually go there.

 

[twin1954]

I guess I'm the exception. I'm not only Dispensational (not full Dispensational though for there are a few things I disagree with), but also Pre-Mill.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I wouldn't call you Reformed any more than I would call myself Reformed. While I do hold to a Covenant theology there are a few things in Reformed theology that I believe are flat wrong. We have discussed this before so I know you understand what I am talking about.

Though I consider Dispensational theology to be heretical that doesn't mean that all who hold to a dispensatoinal theological base are heretics. I do not consider you DeaconDean to be a heretic as you know but simply in error on some things. I,without pause or fear, believe John MacArthur to be a heretic because of his determined and outspoken Dispensationalism and for his subtle legalism. I have listened to him many times and find few things that he says to express a true Spirit given understanding of the Scriptures. He tends to be more concerned with judging folks for how they live than actually knowing what the Gospel is all about.

I will get off o my soapbox now.

 

[DeaconDean]

I wouldn't call you Reformed any more than I would call myself Reformed.

I was educated in Reformed Theology in seminary. I believe myself to hold to most of what Reformed theology teaches except infant baptism.

While I do hold to a Covenant theology there are a few things in Reformed theology that I believe are flat wrong. We have discussed this before so I know you understand what I am talking about.

Yes sir.

Though I consider Dispensational theology to be heretical that doesn't mean that all who hold to a dispensatoinal theological base are heretics. I do not consider you DeaconDean to be a heretic as you know but simply in error on some things. I,without pause or fear, believe John MacArthur to be a heretic because of his determined and outspoken Dispensationalism and for his subtle legalism. I have listened to him many times and find few things that he says to express a true Spirit given understanding of the Scriptures. He tends to be more concerned with judging folks for how they live than actually knowing what the Gospel is all about.

I will get off o my soapbox now.

Oh np brother. We have talked in the past and we understand one another.

Like I said, I do not agree with everything Dispensationalism teaches, but I do some. I'm just an "old time" Dispensationalist".

I do not agree with all John Calvin taught, but I do agree for the most part.

But one thing I have never been convinced out of is my Pre-trib, pre-mill view.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[twin1954]

I was educated in Reformed Theology in seminary. I believe myself to hold to most of what Reformed theology teaches except infant baptism.



Yes sir.



Oh np brother. We have talked in the past and we understand one another.

Like I said, I do not agree with everything Dispensationalism teaches, but I do some. I'm just an "old time" Dispensationalist".

I do not agree with all John Calvin taught, but I do agree for the most part.

But one thing I have never been convinced out of is my Pre-trib, pre-mill view.

God Bless

Till all are one.

We will just have to keep working on that huh?

 

[TaylorSexton]

I'm not only Dispensational...but also Pre-Mill.

Is it possible to be Dispensational and hold to any other millennial view? I always thought that Dispensationalists were of necessity premillennial. Is this not true?

 

[twin1954]

Is it possible to be Dispensational and hold to any other millennial view? I always thought that Dispensationalists were of necessity premillennial. Is this not true?

It isn't possible to be Dispensationalist and not be premillennialism because their whole system of theology is rooted and based on premillennialism.

It is possible,though, to be covenantal and be pre mil just not Dispensational premillennialism. John Gill was premil. The has never been a more covenantal theologian.

 

[TaylorSexton]

It isn't possible to be Dispensationalist and not be premillennialism because their whole system of theology is rooted and based on premillennialism.

That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure.

It is possible,though, to be covenantal and be pre mil just not Dispensational premillennialism. John Gill was premil. The has never been a more covenantal theologian.

Yes, I was aware that all three millennial views can be (and are) held under the covenantal scheme (although, as far as I am aware, premillennialism is still rare under the heading of covenantalism), John Gill being perhaps the quintessential figure on the Baptist side.

 

[DeaconDean]

It is possible,though, to be covenantal and be pre mil just not Dispensational premillennialism. John Gill was premil. The has never been a more covenantal theologian.

What he said.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[pilgrim1999]

That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure.



Yes, I was aware that all three millennial views can be (and are) held under the covenantal scheme (although, as far as I am aware, premillennialism is still rare under the heading of covenantalism), John Gill being perhaps the quintessential figure on the Baptist side.

Premil used to be far more common among covenantalists. I'd say it was much more common from maybe the early-mid 19th Century to around 1980 or so. This was typically found among Presbyterians who were more of a fundamentalist or broadly evangelical bent as opposed to strict confessionalists. (Not to mention several eminent Anglicans and Baptists.) There has been a lot of polarization since the mid 20th Century, so that for many, either you have to be in the Reformed amil (or maybe postmil) camp or you have to be a dispensationalist and there isn't much room in between.

There have even been some who have upheld the unity of the covenant of grace yet who have also been pre-trib. This includes Carl Mcintire and perhaps most in the Bible Presbyterian Church until recent decades as well as Francis Schaeffer and James Montgomery Boice. Then you had J. Oliver Buswell, who was a mid-tribulationist. I bring them up because some would say that a two stage coming is absolutely incompatible with any form of covenantalism. Schaeffer and Boice are often referred to as "historic premil" and it is just automatically assumed that they were post-trib. But they are both either in print or on tape teaching pre-trib and to my knowledge neither changed his position. They didn't emphasize eschatology, so their views aren't widely known today. I know at least one writer who has said that these men had a covenantal ecclesiology and a dispensational eschatology. (What is meant by ecclesiology in this context is the Church/Israel distinction. They didn't make the kind of sharp distinction that classic dispensationalism in the Scofield/Chafer mold did.)

 

[DeaconDean]

Let me say this, I was baptized a Baptist in 1974. I had several "Baptist" evangelists in my dads side of the family. They were "mountain preachers".

My grandfather on my mothers side was a Presbyterian. In 1940, he was conferred as a "ruling" elder in his church.

Now, having said that, I get my "hell fire and brimstone" preaching from my dads side of the family, but I got my love of eschatology and dispenational views from my moms dad.

It seems funny to say that he was Presbyterian (Reformed), Dispensational, and Pre-Mill in one sentence.

We have all heard of Clarence Larkin. From about the early 1870's until the late 1920's, when Fundamentalists were at their peak, Pre-Mill was the dominate view. Fostered by quite a few "maps" that Mr. Larkin put out.

I have seen them, and during bible study at my church one night, one of the deacons was using his "maps" for teaching.

My grandfather, once helped a traveling evangelist named William B. Shout. He died around the mid to late 1940's. Found dead in his car. When his family came to claim his body, they cleaned out his car. What was thrown in the trash were 5 "maps" unlike Mr. Larkin's.

My grandfather had these. As a Sunday school teacher, he learned that in his church, they never taught or preached from the book of Revelations. So he began to study.

From 1974 until 1980, I sat and listened and studied Revelations with him. He is where I got my love for eschatology.

There are perhaps 7 verses in the New Testament that address the coming of Christ in the end times. 5 stick out in particular.

No matter how you look, in 30 years, I have never been able to reconcile these.

I've had my hand slapped by Catholics saying you can't take these literally as they are allegorical.

I've had my hand slapped by Baptists saying that these are symbolic.

Yes, I am a Baptist, been one since 1974. I have Presbyterian influences. I am also a Fundamentalist. ( I have Dispenational influences from both my Presbyterian grandfather and Fundamentalist backgrounds) During seminary classes, I was given a Reformed education, so I'm also Calvinist. And I'm Pre-Mill.

I guess you could say I'm a mess.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[hedrick]

There are perhaps 7 verses in the New Testament that address the coming of Christ in the end times. 5 stick out in particular.

No matter how you look, in 30 years, I have never been able to reconcile these.

Interestingly, this is the one area in which Jesus claimed he didn't know either.

 

[DeaconDean]

Interestingly, this is the one area in which Jesus claimed he didn't know either.

Nobody knows except the Father.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I have found that most are either Amill or Postmill. It's interesting though, that Dispensationalism came out of the Reformed camp. Go figure.

Who, when, how did dispensationalism come out of the Reformed camp? This is what I read from Wikipedia:

John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren,[1] and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.[2]

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle and contemporary of Darby, published criticism of Darby and Brethrenism.[19] His main criticism was that Darby and the Plymouth Brethren rejected the vicarious purpose of Christ's obedience as well as imputed righteousness. He viewed these of such importance and so central to the Gospel that it led him to this statement about the rest of their belief.

James Grant wrote: "With the deadly heresies entertained and taught by the Plymouth Brethren, in relation to some of the most momentous of all the doctrines of the Gospel, and to which I have adverted at some length, I feel assured that my readers will not be surprised at any other views, however unscriptural and pernicious they may be, which the Darbyites have embraced and zealously seek to propagate"[20] - Wikipedia page
​

The history behind the Plymouth Brethren, traces back to Ireland and originates from Anglicanism. Anglicans are a mixed bag, some are Calvinistic others are more Catholic.

 

[RC1970]

Who, when, how did dispensationalism come out of the Reformed camp? This is what I read from Wikipedia:

John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren,[1] and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.[2]

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle and contemporary of Darby, published criticism of Darby and Brethrenism.[19] His main criticism was that Darby and the Plymouth Brethren rejected the vicarious purpose of Christ's obedience as well as imputed righteousness. He viewed these of such importance and so central to the Gospel that it led him to this statement about the rest of their belief.

James Grant wrote: "With the deadly heresies entertained and taught by the Plymouth Brethren, in relation to some of the most momentous of all the doctrines of the Gospel, and to which I have adverted at some length, I feel assured that my readers will not be surprised at any other views, however unscriptural and pernicious they may be, which the Darbyites have embraced and zealously seek to propagate"[20] - Wikipedia page
​

The history behind the Plymouth Brethren, traces back to Ireland and originates from Anglicanism. Anglicans are a mixed bag, some are Calvinistic others are more Catholic.

You'll have to read "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" by John H. Gerstner

Gerstner mostly critiques Dispensationalism's antinomianism and phony Calvinism, but he gives a good history of Dispensationalism at the beginning of the book.

It's a good book.