Reformed Bibliography for ex-Dispensationalists

Status
Not open for further replies.

monoergon

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello brothers and sisters,
I created this thread so that you may recommend reformed bibliographic literature (books or articles, old and, preferably, new) on the following subjects and aspects:

1. A work introducing Amillennialism, but, at the same time, refuting dispensational and/or premillennial interpretations of key eschatological verses;

2. A reformed work whose main objective is to refute:
a. dispensationalism and/or premillennialism;
b. pretribulationism. I'm actually looking forward to reading something directly refuting it.

3. Any other works refuting other aspects of dispensational theology.

Thanks
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Just get Sam Storms's book Kingdom Come, probably the single best book written on the subject (though I disagree with his take on Revelation 20), although Vern Poythress's book Understanding Dispensationalists, is also stellar.
 

PhilA

Puritan Board Sophomore
I found this very helpful:-

Dispensationalism - Rightly Dividing the People of God? Keith A Mathison
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Also check out some Progressive dispensational works for several reasons:

a) they critique classic dispensationalism quite well (and they employ the already/not yet schema)
b) it will protect one from straw men (like saying Dispensationalists all hold that Old Covenant was saved by works).

George Ladd's stuff

Anthony Hoekema is good because he realizes that no dispensationalist today holds to saved by works for old testament and he urges Reformed to stop making that charge.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
William Cox wrote a few things on this topic.

Biblical Studies in Final Things
Biblical Studies in Final Things: William E. Cox: 9780875521527: Amazon.com: Books

Amillennialism Today
http://www.amazon.com/Amillennialis...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425145091&sr=1-1

Why I left Scofieldsim
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/why-i-left-scofieldism-by-william-cox/

This is absolutely one of my most favorite books on the topic. The Promise of the Future by Cornel Venema. It gives a good historical background on the various understandings.
http://www.amazon.com/Promise-Future-Cornelis-P-Venema/dp/0851517935
 

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
Anthony Hoekema is good because he realizes that no dispensationalist today holds to saved by works for old testament and he urges Reformed to stop making that charge.
Maybe not theologians, but I was taught such things explicitly by certain sunday school teachers growing up in an SBC church.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Anthony Hoekema is good because he realizes that no dispensationalist today holds to saved by works for old testament and he urges Reformed to stop making that charge.
Maybe not theologians, but I was taught such things explicitly by certain sunday school teachers growing up in an SBC church.
Also depends on which Scofield Bible was in use. As regards classical dispensationalism of the Ryrie school, I would count Michael Vlach as the most articulate defender of it and he denies the charge.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
I would second Pastor Lane's recommendation of Sam Storm's book, Kingdom Come (Lane, where do you disagree with him re Rev 20?).

There is also, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, by John Gerstner
[h=1][/h]
I would argue (with Augustine) that the first resurrection is conversion, and the second resurrection is bodily resurrection. Storms follows Kline in arguing that the first resurrection is (ironically) the death of the Christian. I find it incongruous to describe death as resurrection.
 

R Harris

Puritan Board Sophomore
"Israel and the New Covenant" by Roderick Campbell, with a forward by Oswald T. Allis. I have read in several places where it is a masterpiece x and I am now about a third of the way through it.

So far, it is very good. The book's purpose is to cover covenant theology and eschatology and tie the two together.

It is a good synopsis so far, but given that it was written in 1954, he did not write it in 'popular' format, so you have to work through it somewhat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top