The Three Forms of Premillennialism: Compared and Contrasted
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 09. 2023
- Details the three forms of Premillennialism and how they differ and are similar. Includes discussion of (1) Laddian Historic Premillennialism; (2) Non-Laddian Historical Premillennialism; and (3) Dispensational Premillennialism. Addresses views of theologians like George Ladd, J. C. Ryle, Charles Spurgeon.
Check out Michael Vlach's new video course, Biblical Eschatology. www.michaeljvlach.com/sales-page
For Michael's book, The New Creation Model, see: amzn.to/3Lh5XWZ
My Website: www.michaeljvlach.com
Books by Michael Vlach: amzn.to/3Pv5R07
Future Israel by Barry Horner: www.amazon.com/Future-Israel-...
Thank you for this. Can I just point out that in the list of supporters of non-Laddian Historical Premillenialists ‘David Barton’ should read ‘David Baron’ who wrote among other books on Israel a significant commentary on Zechariah.
Very helpful. Thank you Dr. Vlach
Glad it was helpful!
Love the quote from Justin Martyr
You could call Non-Laddian Pre-millenialism, as 'Classical Pre-millenialism'.
Classical' and Dispensational Pre-millenialism both feature Israel as a substantial feature in eschatology. I'm happy with that.
Cheers, ex-atheist, former materialistic evolutionist and happily a Dispensational Pre-millenialist believing Christian.
Dr Vlach, I go to a Reformed theology church that holds to classical amillennialism. When I told one of the pastors my difference in theological understanding with the church is I believe the nation of Israel will be restored at the Second Coming of Christ, he said “Ah so you’re a dispensationalist”, looking back it looks like even he isn’t aware there were big name ministers in l”our theological heritage” such as Ryle that held to a form of national restoration of Israel yet not dispensational…
Great presentation. Lays out the issues in a clear, discernible manner. Wonderful contribution, brother!
Perhaps a good term for those before Ladd's model might be classic? Is it fair to say they led up to his form, or contributed to it, so in that sense, his "revised" form of historic premill- might be analogous to our "revised" dispy develpment? So Ladd would be the revised version of this conception. Premmill- thinking seems to have analogous developments alongside dispy thinking: classic, revised, progressive. Just batting it around :)
Very helpful as always
Really good stuff! I think it's helpful to distinguish Laddian from non-Laddian historic Premillennialism too. The reality is, just a cursory reading of church fathers, medieval theologians, Puritans, and other ministers (Ryle and Bonar, for example) shows they wouldn't have really agreed with Ladd's "historic" Premillennialism view and thus, titling it that seems a bit misleading on Ladd's part, to say the least.
Really appreciate what you're doing Dr. Vlach!
Plus, the early church premills linked this view with the OT prophets, which Dispensationalists also do, unlike Ladd.
Wonderful and edifying presentation. It helped bring clarity to my pre-mill views. I consider myself Reformed and pre-mill. My church elders hold to an Amill or post-mill position and by their own admission when asked do not have knowledge of historic pre-mill distinctive doctrines. I think most think of pre-mill solely as dispensational, and in our circles that is not a good thing. (Our founding pastor would recommend Gerstner’s book when asked.) Thank you again. I am genuinely convinced scripture teaches premillennialism. I currently hold to non-Ladd historic (deep gratitude for drawing the line between the two views). I am now reconsidering the Dispensational hermeneutic, so I have found your channel to be a blessing.
Thank you. I'm glad the videos have been helpful.
I think amillenialists have a clear view of the reality of our current age but incorrecly label it millenium.
Great Video! Regarding the similarities/dissimilarities of Classic Premillennialism and Dispensationalim: wouldn't Classic Premillennialists view the future salvation of Israel has happening within the context of the church? Also, wouldn't there be more emphasis on there being one people of God in the Classic Premillennial view?
Hello, Dr. Vlach. Thank you for this lecture. I just wanted to clarify that Spurgeon did not encounter classical dispensationalism. Darby's dispensationalism is starkly different from Scofield's. There are of course elements that are similar, but I would venture to say Darby would agree more with you than with Scofield (I'm Brethren, so I am familiar with these topics). Anyway, I've read some of Spurgeon's criticism and, as is usual when arguing with non-dispensationalists, there were a lot of misunderstandings because of terminology. God bless.
What is thematic premillennialism? It's talked about in the book _Models of Premillennialism_ by Sung W. Chung and David L. Mathewson, but I haven't read the book (yet), so I'm looking for an overview of what it entails.
New Creation Model. I have struggled to name the variety I hold to. I began calling it the Restorationist View only because I could not find a formal view to attach to, but in my view New Heaven and Earth commence at the Second Coming. I have written a few articles, but in the backs of many Bibles the charts (erroneously, I believe) put a New Creation after the Millennium, simply because chapter 21 of Revelation follows chapter 20. I see chapters 20 and 21 running as concurrent. Chapter 20 is a Who's Who that discloses a natural progression of thought in wondering what happens to each of the character sets: Sheep, Goats (living and dead) the Satanic Trinity and how the Millennium plays out for these, and afterward. Chapter 21 backs us up to the narrative and action immediately following Chapter 19.
Folks shoehorn 2 Peter 3 in between, which would be an out-of-place judgment passage, the parent passage being Isaiah 65 that chronologically places these judgment events, sky rolling up like a scroll, etc. as the time of judgment and wrath we know as the Tribulation Week. Indeed we see this beginning in Revelation 6 and continuing. Then Isaiah 65 places idyllic Kingdom after that time. There are several things out of sync with putting an explosive nuclear galactic-wide event after the Millennium, chief among them being, that's too late. The world will be in such a state that Christ must restore before Millennium or we have no paradise. For instance, the world is contaminated and all the water is blood. Plus, the Greek term and context for "new" is the same as we becoming a "new" creation upon our salvation. This does not mean we must go nuclear to become a New Man. Then there are several contextual logic consequences that otherwise would not add up. The OT prophets themselves put the order of events as Kingdom following wrath and not the reverse so wedging 2 Peter 3 judgment after the Millennium is a non-starter in my opinion. Plus, if were a cataclysmic nuclear event, how does God fulfill His promises to Israel that they will never again be removed, that the new temple will be forever and ever, that they will walk where their fathers walked forever and ever, etc.?
All that to say, if that is what you mean by "New Creation Model" then I am on board with that. Not many understand this yet. The late Jack Kelley did, as I recall. Who else?
Could there be such a thing as Historical Dispensational Pre-millenialism. 🤔
I’m not sure if you have read John Gill on Revelation 19-20. He believed that the millennium would take place on the new heaven and the new earth. Thomas Schreiner is having a commentary coming out in October 2023 that takes Gill’s position of “New Creation Millennialism.” Would be interested to hear you engage with this position.
The info on it is scant. I have the book. Will continue to follow.
Dispensationalists are not the only ones who believe God will restore or "make new" earth and its creatures. We don't have to be dispensationalists to have a New Creation framework
Let us reclaim Historic Premillenialism from the followers of George Ladd
That would be a good development.
Pre-Laddian? Dunno. People with a bad hermeneutic. Lol.