One reason why I don’t blog more regularly is that I haven’t committed to doing so on a regular schedule. In addition, as I’m sure many bloggers have found, coming up with original posts of substance on a regular basis is also rather time consuming. (While he is certainly much better read and educated than I am, I still don’t know how Dan Phillips does it!)
Although I’ve been tempted to do so recently, I’ve also hesitated to simply turn the blog into an index of quotations of various worthies on one particular subject, as is the habit of some. But I find sharing quotations from time to time can be helpful, especially if the quote is from a somewhat different perspective than is common today.
I’ve been doing a bit of reading of historic premillennial literature recently. In most cases, this has been older covenant premillennial writing (i.e. Reformed) of the type that was widespread in the 19th and early 20th Centuries. Perhaps the best known representatives of this school would be C.H. Spurgeon, Horatius Bonar and J.C. Ryle, among many others that could be named. As will be seen in the following quote, which I think would be generally representative of their approach, their hermeneutics differed from that of George Ladd, who is generally considered to be the standard bearer for historic premillennialism (i.e. post-trib) from the mid 20th Century to the present day.
I recently came across this gem from Norman F. Douty (1899-1993) that I thought I’d share. Mr. Douty is today best known as the author of Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? However he wrote a good many other books on various subjects, including a couple devoted to eschatology.
Some of the allusions in the following may be somewhat foreign to those who aren’t used to reading theologians wrangle over eschatology. But I think the general thrust of it will be clear enough to those who have read a little in this area of study. The reference to “spiritualizers” is directed toward amillenarians, although it has some application to more recent historic premillenarians of the Ladd school as well.
Mr. Douty writes
The “spiritualizers” base their system upon the use made of Old Testament predictions in the New, which they consider gives the “key” to understanding the unfulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament. It is undoubtedly true that the later revelations of the New Testament are to regulate us in our understanding of the earlier ones of the Old Testament, for there is such a thing as progress in doctrine from Genesis to Revelation. But when interpreters of the New Testament construe its inspired writers as violating the basic hermeneutical principle described above,* we demur. We do so because we cannot believe that inspiration–however greatly above reason–ever is against it. Since the historico-grammatical principle is the only rational one for the interpretation of all literature, that construction of New Testament portions which opposes them against the obvious, natural teaching of the Old Testament, cannot be correct. We are compelled to challenge such construction rather than shut our eyes to the unmistakable declarations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
It has been customary for Protestants to deny the need for any special key to the understanding of the Scriptures. The Romanist, the Mormon, the Seventh-day Adventist, the Christian Scientist, the Russellite–each has his key, without which one is supposed to flounder hopelessly in the interpretation of Scripture. The amillenarian, it must be said, has his key too. Without it, we are told, one can never understand unfulfilled prophecy. This claim, in itself renders the system suspect. People generally do not become amillennialists by simply studying the Bible, but by using special keys.**
The “spiritualizing” interpreters also argue that under the Gospel, national distinctions have ceased. But the same distinction between Israel and the Gentiles which is found in the Old Testament is continued in the New. [Mr. Douty then goes on to list a number of NT passages, which I omit for the sake of brevity–CP] It is quite true that there is no difference between these two divisions of the race in regard to things eternal and heavenly, but there is in regard to things temporal and earthly. The plea based on Galatians 3:28 (that in Christ Jesus there can be neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female) and Colossians 3:11 (that in him there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian and Scythian, bondman and freeman) is invalid, because these verses are not contemplating men as men, but only as Christians. So far as this life goes, the distinctions still hold. The truth is that, in the New Testament, even unsaved Jews are termed Israelites, and saved members of other nations are still called Gentiles. Moreover, the former are considered as having certain advantages over unsaved Gentiles (Rom. 3:1,2). Even their unbelief does not deprive them, as a nation, of the things God once promised (3:3, 4a). In Romans 9:4, 5 the ancient covenants and promises are viewed as yet belonging to the nation, for “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (cf. Rom. 11:29). Hence Israel is still spoken of as God’s people (Rom. 11:1, 2).
Holding, then, to one consistent mode of explaining Holy Writ, we believe that the Old Testament predictions of a glorious future for a chastened and converted nation Israel are to be literally fulfilled. We do not subscribe to the Pharisees’ carnal conception of the Kingdom, nor do we think that believing Gentiles are to be regarded as spiritually inferior to believing Jews. But in the natural–not spiritual–sphere, Israel will be the “head of the nations.” Is it not true, even in this age, that some Christians are elevated politically above others? However, our spiritualizing brethren fail to apprehend this distinction, and charge us (falsely, as will appear) with being Judaizers of a sort, and rebuilders of the middle wall of partition which was broken down at the cross of Calvary.
Douty, The Abrahamic Covenant: Its Relation to Israel and the Church (self published, 1984) pp. 10-12.
Chris: Thank you for posting this. It is indeed a gem, and I was unaware of it, though I was familiar with Douty’s works on other subjects. I find my convictions lining up with Douty’s teaching above, and thus can utter a hearty “Amen!” in response.
On one of the issues mentioned on this subject, I highly recommend Alva J. McClain’s “The ‘Sprituality’ of the Kingdom”, which is Chapter XXVII in his book, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1959), pp. 519-526. This was previously published as a journal article in Bibliotheca Sacra 113:449 (JAN 1956), pp. 16-23.
I would also add a thought on a passage that may be among those you mention omitting in the next to the last paragraph from Douty above. Rom. 15:25-27 makes it clear that the distinction continues in the spiritual indebtedness of the Gentile believers to Jewish believers underwriting their duty towards them in “carnal things”.
To the information on respected proponents of historic premillennialism you listed above I would add the following:
Charles Haddon Spurgeon – cp. sermons, and esp. “Charles H. Spurgeon and Eschatology: Did He Have a Discernible Millennial Position?”, by Dennis Michael Swanson, at The Spurgeon Archive,http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm [accessed 15 MAY 2010], where many of these sermons are found referenced in Swanson’s footnotes.
Allan Alexander MacRae, The Millennial Kingdom of Christ, Hatfield, PA: Biblical School of Theology, n.d.; and Wilmington, DE: Faith Theological Seminary, n.d.; originally in the Christian Beacon, March 11 and 18, 1937. This work was later extensively revised and republished as A Glorious Future, Hatfield, PA: Biblical Theological Seminary, 1981 (full title: A glorious future: a premillennialist looks at the millennial kingdom of Christ and examines postmillennial and amillennial objections). As an Old Testament scholar, and a leader in Christian education, Dr. MacRae was widely respected.
J. Oliver Buswell, Timothy Tow, and Jeffrey Khoo, Theology for Every Christian: A Systematic Theology in the Reformed and Premillennial Tradition of J. Oliver Buswell, Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 2007. See also: Jeffrey Khoo, “Dispensational premillennialism in reformed theology: The contribution of J.O. Buswell to the millennial debate”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, December 2001.
Donald Grey Barnhouse – cp. sermons on key passages, and the following printed works: Revelation – An Expositional Commentary Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971, and He Came Unto His Own, New York: Revell, 1933.
J. Barton Payne – see esp. his Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.
James Montgomery Boice – cp. sermons and commentaries on key passages (Note: He was accused in my presence of being a dispensationalist by John Gerstner, but denied it publicly. To John Gerstner all premillennialists were by definition also dispensationalists and all dispensationalists were by definition antinomian so if you did not agree with him you were tarred with all available brushes!). For example: Dr. Boice has a remarkable defense of the premillennial hermeneutic in his exposition of Obadiah! His treatment of this book can be found in his two volume commentary, Minor Prophets, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. This is also available as a DVD set of 68 MP3 messages at http://www.reformedresources.org/audio/the-minor-prophets-mp3-set/ [accessed 15 MAY 2010]. The message on Obadiah is available individually at http://www.reformedresources.org/audio/obadiah/ [accessed 15 MAY 2010]. See also his “How Will It all End?”, in Foundations of the Christian Faith, InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Moishe Rosen – His message during the 1986 Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology held at Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, PA, was entitled, “Does Israel Have An Earthly Future?” This was later published as a paper co-authored with Mitch Glasser and Larry Brandt in a pamphlet along with the other messages from the 1986 PCRT entitled Our Blessed Hope: The Biblical Doctrine of the Last Things, Philadelphia: The Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology, 1986, pp. 30-40. Listen to it at http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals/listen/does-israel-have-an-earthly-future-70487.html [accessed 15 MAY 2010]. Don’t miss this one, and keep in mind where this was preached!
Barry Horner – Dr. Horner spoke at the Bunyan Conference in the past, and has some fine defenses of premillennialism on his web site at http://www.bunyanministries.org/articles.htm. Among these works are his own Judeo-centric Eschatology, and Horatius Bonar’s Judeo-centric Premillennialism. Also, see his Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged (New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology).
Note: The next two are often neglected, but authored what may be the most significant defenses of premillennialism ever put into print! And, neither one of these men falls within the pale of Dispensationalism.
Nathaniel West – The Thousand Years, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993; from original Studies in Eschatology, 1899.
George N. H. Peters – The Theocratic Kingdom, 3 vols., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952.
See also the International Conference on Historical Premillennialism at Denver Seminary, April 23-25, 2009, http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/international-conference-on-historic-premillennialism/ [accessed 15 MAY 2010].
Jack,
Thanks for stopping by. Thanks also for the long list of resources. I was aware of many of them, although I haven’t yet read several of them.
Douty does not list Rom. 15:25-27, although I doubt his list was meant to be exhaustive. That is indeed a good verse in demonstrating that there is still a difference or distinction among men as men as Douty describes it.
I think Dennis Swanson’s articles on Spurgeon are excellent. They definitively show that Spurgeon was a historic premillennialist, despite the efforts of some postmils and amils to enlist CHS in their cause. He didn’t address the subject often, but when he did his position was clear.
McRae was indeed widely respected except among the OPC and Westminster Seminary, which he and others left (to form the Bible Presbyterian Church) largely over premillennialism and other issues. A Dutch influence came in with Van Til and others, and McRae and others saw it as a departure from American Presbyterianism which was more fundamentalist (with regard to alcohol and other issues) and premillennial than we would think of conservative Presbyterianism today. I sometimes enjoy pointing out to Presbyterian friends that Presbyterians were probably more responsible for popularizing dispensationalism in North America than any other group. (McRae evidently was a dispensationalist since he was one of the editors of the New Scofield Bible of 1967.) I’ve found some interesting material of his online, including a letter or short paper regarding the proceedings and guidelines for updating the Scofield. He certainly had a very long career.
That kind of Presbyterian premillennialism has fallen so far out of favor that both Buswell and Payne are now out of print. As you note Buswell’s work has been reprinted and apparently supplemented by the Bible Presbyterians in Singapore. G.H. Clark and Francis Schaeffer were also premillennial, with Schaeffer having come out of the Bible Presbyterian Church. His “No Little People” has a sermon on Revelation in which he basically takes the futurist line, although he doesn’t go into much detail.
Dr. John Battle of Western Reformed Seminary has some good articles on this issue, particularly within the context of the Bible Presbyterian Church. Some of them are probably on the seminary website. I have one downloaded, but it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack to find it right now.
Strange is at may seem to some who are not that familiar with Presbyterian history, Barnhouse was a dispensationalist. If I’m not mistaken, the pew Bibles during his tenure at Tenth were Scofields!
Boice was actually a dispensationalist early on in his ministry but abandoned it in favor of historic premillennialism at some point early in his tenure at Tenth if not prior to that. One of his first books was written from a dispensational perspective, and I think it may still be in print or else is still widely available. Thank you for the links to his messages, as I’ve been wondering lately about what his hermeneutical approach was.
Is Moishe Rosen a Calvinist? That is indeed interesting given where it was preached. Consider the furor that erupted with MacArthur’s message a few years ago, and that was at his own conference. Some might fault the delivery or dogmatism but overall I doubt that it would have made much difference given the views expressed and the antipathy toward them in Reformed circles today. And I don’t think his main point necessitates dispensationalism.
I have a lot of old premillennial works saved on Google Books. Peters’ books are among them. I first became aware of Peters and Payne when R.K. McGregor Wright mentioned them a few years ago.
The works that Horner has edited by the older writers are on Google Books as well. The Bonar work was originally entitled “Prophetical Landmarks.” Ryle’s “Coming Events and Present Duties” was recently republished as “Are You Ready for the End of Time?”
Aren’t Horner’s “Judeo-centric Eschatology” articles essentially an earlier version of “Future Israel?” I was basically amil before reading Horner’s book. I think it was that work along with messages from S. Lewis Johnson that made a premil out of me. Several of Wright’s essays and email group posts helped a lot too. Viewing some Waldron lectures around this time only hardened my premil convictions!
Alexander Keith, another Free Church minister, wrote “Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion Derived from the Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy,” which was a landmark 19th Century work that was apparently widely read at the time. It’s available on Google Books and perhaps elsewhere as well. Maybe one day I’ll start reading some of those books. But I have to remind myself to not neglect the more basic Gospel teachings as well.
There are a good number of Nathaniel West works available in “full preview” on Google Books, but unfortunately his “Thousand Years” is not among them. Even though it’s certainly in the public domain, I’m guessing that it may be because it is in print or was recently in print. Among others, there is however the book that West edited that came out of the landmark premillennial prophetic conference 1878. (http://books.google.com/books?id=KbErAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=nathaniel+west&cd=1#v=onepage&q=nathaniel%20west&f=false) This prophetic conference included both pre-trib and post-trib men. Evidently postmillennialism was seen as the “enemy” at that time and perhaps the differences between pre-trib and post-trib didn’t become sharper until later. West apparently accepted dispensationalism at first but then later sharply rejected it in print. If I recall correctly, Ladd covers this in his “Blessed Hope.” It’s recounted in the introduction of one of the “Four Views” books too. But I haven’t been able to find those writings by West. I think they were mostly in periodicals.
Benjamin Wills Newton, one of the early “Brethren,” is one I want to dig into once I have the time. Like Tregelles, he split with Darby over pretribulationism, but he was clearly a futurist as well. The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony that I have linked in the sidebar keeps his books in print, but I don’t know what it costs to have them shipped from the UK. Most of his major works appear to be available on Google Books. Most of them are on prophetical subjects but he wrote on other subjects too. Every now and then I’ll see one of his books listed on ebay but the price gets out of hand pretty quickly. I’ll sometimes think “Maybe I can sneak in and get this one for $20” and before I know it, the bid is $75.
I’m fascinated, as many times as some conclusion I’ve come to, simply trying to puzzle out in my little corner–and I’ll just as soon come across something like your quote, and I’ll think: “Man, that just hits a harmonious note.”
Because of the benefit of interaction over at the PB with the “other side” of this tradition of ours, some time ago I just finally decided that as similar in many ways as our hermeneutics are, as much as they can be traced to a common Reformation root, we just “read the Bible” differently. The quote above seems to affirm the same sentiment.
That assertion (like another one I made before) really demands some unpacking; but I am truly convinced that when the theme has been explored, that statement will hold up, and both sides will agree on it.
So, for example, I do not believe that paedo-baptists change, or credo-baptists change into their opposites, primarily on the strength of arguments. (I expect you will agree heartily). The issue of “change” (for the better) comes about when something deeper changes, or is frankly settled for the first time; or perhaps when one’s practice comes into conformity with some deeper, maybe not even articulated, but nonetheless deeply driven first-principle.
BartEhrman is a perfect example of someone with oh-so-deeply-laid fundamentalist hermeneutics (the deep structure), whose theological superstructure was ripped away by biblical criticism. What’s been rebuilt still rests on his fundamentalist foundation. This thought came to me while listening to James White prepping for his debate with BE.
The biggest reason for not enthusiastically receiving someone’s “broadcast change” is that, so far as I’m concerned, I have no idea what this “change” indicates. I have now seen more than one person “change” his baptism-conviction, and watched as he (with tether and pylon now drifting along) headed out into the sea to be “blown and tossed by the wind.”
A surface commitment to “Reformed theology” isn’t enough. Too many people are “in love” with the symmetry and harmony, the aesthetic and intellectual satisfaction of Reformed theology. They aren’t actually firmly in touch with the Christ who inspired this theology, which is devoted to him. And some of them who yet may be true believers, eventually leave RT disturbed and unhappy with the experience.
I’d rather a baptist remain a baptist, because his baptist convictions keep him tethered to Christ, than have him change his superficial mind without understanding how deep down the real issues lie. I’d rather have a premillenial brother in Christ, than a former brother and former premillenial who now espouses liberalism or atheism.
I see that several of Dr. Boice’s series on the Minor Prophets recorded for the Bible Study Hour are available for streaming on Oneplace: (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/the-bible-study-hour/listen/) A good number of messages from Romans 9-11 appear to address the issue at some length as well.
Bruce,
I too have seen that scenario of those swinging from one extreme to another play out several times in recent years. It seems to happen most often to those who fixate on some kind of distinctive and argue for it vehemently. Yet the foundation is not built on the solid rock. When the distinctive or hobby horse is jettisoned, the whole ediface sometimes crumbles along with it. At that point, It is replaced with some completely non-evangelical system or in some cases, outright atheism.
The passage from Spurgeon’s “The Soulwinner” that I posted a while back is instructive too. An inordinate focus on converting generally sound brethren to our view of baptism, eschatology or even soteriology rather than proclaiming the riches of Christ to those that don’t know Him is suitable labor for Pharisees. And I fear that I’ve played that role far too often over the past 10 years or so.
Chris: You are correct about the pew Bibles at Tenth being Scofields “back in the day”! When I first attended PCRT Boice was the pastor (late 1970s), and I was shocked to see the Scofield Reference Bible in the rack in front of me alongside of the Trinity Hymnal. It brought a smile to my face! Blame Barnhouse! During a visit to Tenth years ago I heard an explanation for the purchase of this particular edition of Bibles for the pew racks that did not attribute it to Dr. Barnhouse. This story was that a wealthy member agreed to pay for the pew Bibles with the stipulation that they had to be Scofield Reference Bibles. The last time I was at Tenth was in the mid-1980s, and the pew Bibles had been replaced by the NIV, if memory serves me right. It may be that Barnhouse should properly be thought of as a Dispensational Premillennialist, since one result of his ministry was the placement of Scofield Reference Bibles as pew Bibles at Tenth Presbyterian Church (Philadelphia, PA). Anyway, I probably should not include Barnhouse in my list of Historic Premillenialists. If I continue to do so it will be with a note about what you have mentioned.
Yes, I believe that Rosen’s soteriology is Calvinistic. I doubt that he would have been invited to address the PCRT otherwise! Did you notice his “Foreword” to Horner’s book (pg. xi)!!!
I believe that you are correct about MacAruthur’s message and the response to it. I would also agree with you that his major premise is Premillennial without necessarily being Dispensational.
My understanding is that Horner’s “Judeo-centric Eschatology” articles are essentially an earlier version of “Future Israel” as you mentioned, but I am not aware of this linkage being documented. Dr. Horner apparently plans to provide a link to “The Development of ‘Future Israel”‘ at some later date, since he has entered that subject line already at on Future Israel at http://www.futureisraelministries.org/future_israel.html [accessed 20 MAR 2012].
I really appreciate the information about Alexander Keith, since I was unaware of him previously.
I want to draw your attention to two important recent works that have not been mentioned by either of us. You may already be aware of them.
John MacArthur & Richard Mayhue, gen. eds., Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer (Chicago: Moody Press, 2012).
Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, eds., A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009).
Note: This work is the result of the 2007 International Conference on Historical Premillennialism sponsored by the Denver Seminary Institute of Contextualized Biblical Studies at Denver Seminary (Denver, CO). This annual conference has been sponsored since February of 2000. Timothy Weber’s contribution to this volume, “Dispensational and Historical Premillennialism as Popular Millennial Movements”, lists many other proponents of the subject view that are not included in this bibliography on pp. 13-14. See also the International Conference on Historical Premillennialism at Denver Seminary, April 23-25, 2009, http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/international-conference-on-historic-premillennialism/ [accessed 15 MAY 2010].
Finally, on my point above re: Rom. 15:25-27, be sure to see Horner’s citation of John McRay, “Paul: His Life and Teaching” (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), pp. 11-12, re: Gal. 3:28 (“Future Israel”, pg. xv).
Jack,
Thanks again for the comment. I believe Barnhouse was indeed a dispensationalist if pre-trib is to be equated with dispensationalism, as was apparently the case in that day. It seems to me that the general if not unanimous thinking at that time among Baptists and Presbyterians (and perhaps what conservative Congregationalists that were left) was that you were either a covenant theologian or a dispensationalist with virtually no middle ground in between.
I don’t have the book before me, but I recall Norman F. Douty in another book (The Great Tribulation Debate: Has Christ’s Return Two Stages?) noting an argument for pre-trib made by Dr. Barnhouse and then dismissing it. Given the overwhelming preponderance of dispensationalism in his Baptist circles in those days (I’m guessing he may have been GARBC at that time and was formerly the President of what eventually became Cornerstone University and Grand Rapids Seminary), as one might imagine, Douty’s book against pre-trib didn’t serve to make him very many friends at the time. In one of the “Three Views” books on the rapture, the editor mentions Douty as an example of a minister losing ministry opportunities as a result of a switch from pre-trib to post-trib.
It was through consulting Oswald T. Allis’ Prophecy and the Church that I became aware of Keith’s work. Dr. Allis notes Keith’s popular 19th Century work on literal fulfillment of prophecy and complains that not even that was literal enough for the literalistic dispensationalists. I’ve found that one virtue of reading older books like that is their citation of other older works that may now be out of print but which are often now available on Google Books. I’ve found that to especially be the case with the books of Douty’s that I have. Even though he published it in 1984, most of the quotes from the book on the Abrahamic Covenant that I quote from in this post are from 19th Century works on ecclesiology and/or eschatology that are out of print but which are available on Google Books. Of course some academicians will see the lack of citations from more contemporary writers as a deficiency, but for my purposes it’s not as much of an issue. I don’t know how much of George Eldon Ladd he read, although he praises The Blessed Hope in The Great Tribulation Debate.
For that matter, all of Douty’s books are out of print except for the one defending “Moderate Calvinism.” But all of the ones I have (the three I’ve already mentioned, along with his Union With Christ (which he evidently considered his magnum opus)) are quite worthwhile and available on the used book market. Some of his books like Has Christ’s Return Two Stages and Another Look at Seventh-Day Adventism were considered notable contributions at the time. (The latter was notable because of Barnhouse’s and Walter Martin’s acquittal of the SDA’s of the charge of being a cult and Douty’s disagreement with them.) Peter Toon edited Did Christ Die Only for the Elect and Union With Christ.
Douty’s book on the Abrahamic Covenant is going to be too “literalistic” for some who get nervous at talk about a future for ethnic Israel and not “literal” enough for dispensationalists. But IMO it is a worthy contribution. The first chapter on hermeneutics which I quote from above is probably alone worth the price of the book. Altogether it is only 211 pages, but he doesn’t waste many words. I’m going to have to go back and reread parts of it, if not all of it. While he does occasionally interact with writers with whom he differs, most of the book consists of him setting forth his own view. I see that he does cite Hendrickson and Vos at least once. The main differences between this book and Horner’s is that he doesn’t have all of the quotes about anti-Judaism that Horner felt constrained to include and that Douty is basically a Baptist covenant theologian as opposed to Horner’s NCT or Progressive Dispensational views.
I think you are right about Horner’s files on “Judeo-centric Eschatology” that are posted on his Bunyan Ministries website. He also has some quite lengthy expositions posted there, with some running into several hundred pages if memory serves. It was his Future Israel that was largely the impetus for my abandoning amillennialism in favor of premillennialism. The thesis of MacArthur’s sermon was also helpful. After that I devoured many a S. Lewis Johnson lecture.
Maybe one of these days I will get back to posting. I do have some book reviews I need to finish.
I am with you on the value of Google books, and the older “solid gold” resources to be found there. I recommended one recently on another blog on the subject of the eternal Sonship of Christ that I looked for high and low for 15 years. And to think that I actually had to use a typewriter during Bible college and seminary with no computer and no internet!
Good for you to notice the references to Alexander Keith in O. T. Allis’ “Prophecy and the Church”, and for following up on them. I had Allis’ work for a text book, and have been back and forth in it over and over again during the last 30+ years, yet I failed to do this! You get a gold star in the center of your forehead in my book for thoroughness in research!
I have long been fascinated by the life and teachings of Benjamin Wills Newton for other reasons. I was introduced to him in the writings of A. T. Pierson and J. Edwin Hartill on principles for interpreting Scripture. The more I learned about him the more I felt respect for him. It is very sad that John Nelson Darby’s genius could not have been wedded to a gracious spirit. I will now have to add his works on Google Books to my collection since you leave me no choice! :-)
Keep up the good work!
Regarding Google Books, in the past year or so I’ve spent far too much time on there cataloging books of interest to me. I’ve recently been thinking of linking some of them on a page here so that someone can benefit from the fruits of that labor! A lot of them are older Baptist works along with many Reformed works and a lot of older works on eschatology. But even most of that work has been the result of researching one particular topic or else attempting to find all of the available works by a particular author. The suggestions of related works feature is usually pretty helpful.
I think I have every B.W. Newton book I could find in Google Books in my “library.” Of course, I’ve only scratched the surface in reading him. It would be quite a feat to read him through. At this point I don’t know who would be inclined to do that (or who would have the time to do it) besides a doctoral student, etc. Believe it or not, within the past year I read somewhere that George Mueller said that, for him, his friend Newton was the John Calvin of the 19th Century! I’m not sure where I first became aware of him. It may have been on Wikipedia while looking for something else related to the Plymouth Brethren. Douty refers to him several times as well. But some of the Newton works that Douty recommends are not available (to be viewed) on Google Books. A couple of examples would be The O.T. Saints Not Excluded from the Church of God in Glory and The Second Advent of Our Lord: Not Secret but in Manifested Glory. But I think some of those may have been part of larger works that were later excerpted and published by the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony. A.W. Pink refers to Newton here and there as well and includes some lengthy quotes of Newton’s in his book on sanctification.
Do you have the recent work that details the Darby/Newton split? I’m referring to Jonathan D. Burnham’s A Story of Conflict: The Controversial Relationship Between Benjamin Wills Newton and John Nelson Darby published by Wipf and Stock in 2007.
[…] national and a spiritual fulfillment. The latter do not all fit in the dispensational category. See here for a historic premillennialist who interpreted OT prophecy more “literally” than many […]