Are the majority of Reformed Christians Amillennial?

[Don Maurer]

If I can chime in here (hopefully without being called a heretic), at times, I struggle to even define what is meant by the term "dispensationalism." Dispensationalism is a moving target. The dispensationalism of Darby is not the dispensationalism of Ryrie. The dispensationalism of Ryrie is not the dispensationalism of the progressive dispensationalists. It seems to me that to use the term "dispensationalism, one must consider dispensationalism in a very broad sense, more as a spectrum of theologies. This raises another point, J Mac has been called a "leaky dispensationalists."

On the other hand, I guess dispensationalists could look at Covenant theology in the same way. There are questions concerning the use of the law, and can it be used in politics and government. There are some who call themselves "revised covenant" and "new covenant."

Each side could take a broad view of the terminology, or a narrow view of terminology. Many Covenant theologians would never call "new covenant" theology covenant theology. One the other hand, classic dispensationalists would not call progressive dispensationalism "dispensationalism."

The whole subject I am raising (of terminology) does not answer the question in the OP, but I think it is important. There are some within Amil eschatology that believe in some sort of future for genetic Israel. This is also true within pre-mil eschatology. Dispensationalists question if Historical Pre-mil is actually pre-mil.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I would say more are amill than any other eschatological group, but Spurgeon was Historic Pre-mill(iirc), Gill was either post or pre-mill, Dr. MacArthur is dispensational(though he calls himself a leaky dispensationialist).

I am somewhere betwixt Historic Pre-Mill and amill.

 

[pilgrim1999]

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.

The soteriology of the early Plymouth Brethren was to a man Calvinistic. (Examples include Darby himself, Benjamin Wills Newton and George Muller.) That's what is meant by "coming out of the Reformed camp." It certainly didn't come out of the Wesleyan or Arminian camp.

Keep in mind that Presbyterianism was predominant in Scotland and certainly present in Ireland, but it was basically non-existent in England by the early 1800s, having gone apostate decades before. Only a small percentage of British people have ever been Baptist. So most were Anglican, which has always been a mixed bag.

Most of Spurgeon's attack had to do with the sectarianism of the exclusive Brethren and their majoring on the minors. (Spurgeon spoke positively of the post-trib open Brethren such as Muller and B.W. Newton.)

I'm not sure that the article is correct about imputed righteousness. There was more to the Brethren in the early days than Darby. But if it is, there have been a good many Calvinistic luminaries in our day who have been unclear at best on imputed righteousness.

As for North America, dispensationalism was initially popularized by Presbyterian men and others in denominations (such as Congregationalism) that were historically Calvinist. James H. Brookes (Scofield's mentor, who learned it from Darby), Scofield and Chafer were Presbyterians. They weren't "Truly Reformed" confessional Presbyterians, especially with their rejection of covenant theology. There were a lot more broadly evangelical Presbyterians back then. But neither were they from Arminian ranks, which is what you might tend to believe if you listen to certain Calvinists.

 

[Don Maurer]

I wish to make a 2nd comment concerning the question in the OP. I admit that sometimes I scratch my head over the differences between the Amil view and the Post Mill view. There is a sense in which Amillenialism agrees that the 2nd coming of Christ is after the kingdom. Therefore Amillenialism is post mill. The differences between them has nothing to do with the timing of Christs coming, but it has to do with the nature of the Kingdom.

This leaves Historic PreMillenialism as the more different view. There are other differences between Historic PreMill eschatology and the other two views. Historic PreMillenialism allows for two separate resurrections (Just and unjust).

Also, was Ladd (historic preMill), partial preteristic? Are any Historic PreMills partial preteristic. I am aware that not all Amills and post mills are preteristic. But this is a bonafide question. How much preteristic interpretation did Ladd or Historic PreMillenialists use?