# What is Covenantal Premillennialism?



## govols

Question concerning Phil Johnson (Grace to You)

- What is the difference between Historic Premillennialism and Covenantal Premillenialsm? Is there a difference?
- If no difference then why is the terminology "Covenantal" used?
- How / where has Phil rejected Futuristic Premillennialism and embraced a more "covenantal" stance?
- Is there any information that Phil is truly covenantal?

Was not Spurgeon a Covenantal Premillist?

Not saying that anything is wrong with any of the above.

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by govols]


----------



## RamistThomist

Spurgeon could go either way. He did say things that seemed to affirm premillennialism, yet he also held views of the future that seemed to affirm postmillennialism. For the record he said he was premill.


----------



## govols

You're a great American.

What is Covenantal about Covenantal Premillist?


----------



## Rich Barcellos

I think Cov. Premill sees no distinct future for national Israel in the millennium. That's the historic premill position. I think Cov is used to distinguish it from Disp Premill. You may want to go to Phil's blog and ask him if he is Cov/Hist or non-Disp. Premill. Much of Prog. Disp. looks like hist. premill, but it is not. Hist. Premill sees the church as the eschatological Israel of OT proph. Let me know about Phil if you find out because if he is not I will have to clean up what I said. I may have spoken prematurely.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Probably that they hold to Covenant Theology and Premillennialism.


----------



## fredtgreco

Get George Eldon Ladd's _The Blessed Hope_. It is the best classical (covenantal) premil book around.


----------



## Rich Barcellos

I think Buswell was a Covenant Premill. I think some may put Piper in that camp as well. But, it seems to me that it is impossible to hold to covenant theology and deny the CW, at least in any meaningful historical, non-revisionist sense.


----------



## Puritanhead

Spurgeon was historicist premil.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

No, Spurgeon was futurist (not historicist) covenant premill. 

Literal 1000 years and conversion of the Jews.

BTW all, in case you haven't seen it, here's a good resource on the topic of Covenant Premillennialism:

http://www.messiahskingdom.com

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## govols

Thanks everyone for the information. I do appreciate.

Fred, 

I am searching to see if Ladd's book is "online." If not, I'll order it. Thanks for the recommendation.

Rich,

I'll ask him. BTW - You don't happen to know Shane Koehler do you? He is my pastor and he graduated from Master's.

Kerry,

Thanks for the link. That is the one my pastor sent me last night.

Thanks again!


----------



## govols

How about Boice? He is futuristic covenantal premill is he not?


----------



## Myshkin

Yes, he was.

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by RAS]


----------



## john_Mark

You can find Ladd's book The Last Things: An Eschatology For Laymen http://gospelpedlar.com/eschat_ladd.html online at that link.


----------



## Rich Barcellos

John,

I don't know Shane. I graduated in 1989. That makes me 23 years old.  Concerning Boice, I thought he was Dispensational Premillennial.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> John,
> 
> I don't know Shane. I graduated in 1989. That makes me 23 years old.  Concerning Boice, I thought he was Dispensational Premillennial.



If I remember correctly, Boice began Dispie but moved away from that to a more historical premill (at least this is what Riddlebarger says in his book on Amillennialism. I take that to be accurate as both of them were on the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals).


----------



## Rich Barcellos

Jacob,

Thanks for the clarification. I read Riddlebarger's book and should have remembered that.

I went to lunch with Boice once in the late 1980s. We talked about Gerstner. He had some funny stories about him. He also said that Packer and Gerstner thought he (Boice) was confused about eschatology.


----------



## Myshkin

Rich-

As to your lunch with Boice, (he is a "hero" of mine) would you mind sharing a little about the man. I wish I could have met him. He preached in the pulpit of the church I attend, but that was before I became a christian. I was listening recently to a Ligonier conference where the speaker said something like "Boice's death is part of God's judgment on the Church". Might have been Sproul, as I understand they were good friends. If you prefer, you can u2u me instead. Thanks

-Allan


----------



## Myshkin

What are Packer and Gerstner's millenial positions?


----------



## Fernando

*Spurgeon and the millennium*



> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> No, Spurgeon was futurist (not historicist) covenant premill.
> 
> Literal 1000 years and conversion of the Jews.



Spurgeon was indeed a Historicist Premill. A literal 1000 years and a conversion of the Jews can fit into Historicism quite well. 

The Spurgeon Archive has a good article on Spurgeon's millennial views. Here's a Spurgeon quote from the article: "Israel in the covenant of grace is not national Israel, but all believers in all ages." Sounds covenantal to me.

George Ladd's use of "Historic Premillennialist" to describe his own brand of Futurist Premillennialism has led to confusion in some circles. In this case, "Historic" and "Historicist" should be carefully distinguished.

This site has a great visual on the Historicist view, though I'm sure the accompanying text will not make some here happy.


----------



## Rich Barcellos

I think they were/are both amill.


----------



## Fernando

*Packer on the millennium*

I sat in on a lecture at Regent where Packer defended amillennialism. I still have the class notes he handed out somewhere, I hope.


----------



## Bryan

Ladd is quite good, I have a couple of his books and they are worth reading. I think he understood what the Kingdom of God is very well. 

As for what Phil Johnson's view is, if he is an elder at Grace Church I assume he would have to be committed to the doctrinal statment of that Church which is dispensational through and through.

But again, the best way to find out would be to ask him.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> What are Packer and Gerstner's millenial positions?



RC Sproul in his book, _Last Days according to Jesus_ lists his hero/mentor, John Gerstner, a postmillennialist. I do stand open to corrections, though.


----------



## Preach

Rich, Dr. Gerstner was my theological mentor and my hero (though I never met him). Could you relay some of the stories that Dr. Boice told you about Dr. Gerstner.

Jacob, I have labored under the impression that Dr. Gerstner was an amil. Moreover, I believe Sproul was amil and then changed to postmil (as he also changed his view on the book of "the Revelation of Jesus Christ" to a preAD.70 dating-For anyone who has the Geneva Study Bible in which Sproul was the general editor, that is an amil presenattion of escatology throughout the book and footnotes).


----------



## Rich Barcellos

Bobby,

Boice told the story about Gerstner lecturing at his church on Total Depravity. In the lecture, he said something like, "Men are like rats." During Q & A, a woman said, "Dr. Gerstner, I demand that you retract that statement. It is demeaning." Gerstner paused and then said something like, "You are right. I retract. Men are worse than rats! At least rats do what they were created to do."

I think Boice also told us that Packer and Gerstner thought he's confused about eschatology. I even think Gerstner told me he trembles because he disagreed with Edwards on eschatology.

Gerstner was hard of hearing. When he came to The Master's Seminary in 1988 or so, I was in charge of getting him to and fro. He never got my name right. The last day, he stood before staff, faculty, and students and said, "I'd like to thank Rich Barcelou for housing such an unlikely transient as me." Everyone laughed. Gerstner did not know why. The name has stuck with me to this day.

We went to Burbank airport to pick him up. I did not know what he looked like. I took a friend who saw a video of him. My friend said, "He's hard of hearing." A man in a wrinkled-looking suit came out of a door. We walked up to him and my friend said, "Dr. Gerstner?" Gerstner kept walking. My frined immediately said, "It's him!"


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Rich, Dr. Gerstner was my theological mentor and my hero (though I never met him). Could you relay some of the stories that Dr. Boice told you about Dr. Gerstner.
> 
> Jacob, I have labored under the impression that Dr. Gerstner was an amil. Moreover, I believe Sproul was amil and then changed to postmil (as he also changed his view on the book of "the Revelation of Jesus Christ" to a preAD.70 dating-For anyone who has the Geneva Study Bible in which Sproul was the general editor, that is an amil presenattion of escatology throughout the book and footnotes).



I did notice that Sproul played fast and loose in who was postmill and who wasn't.


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I did notice that Sproul played fast and loose in who was postmill and who wasn't.




Like who? I have his "Last Days" book and was puzzled by his putting Calvin and Augustine in the postmill camp. I know that Warfield is claimed by both the amill and postmill sides too.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I did notice that Sproul played fast and loose in who was postmill and who wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like who? I have his "Last Days" book and was puzzled by his putting Calvin and Augustine in the postmill camp. I know that Warfield is claimed by both the amill and postmill sides too.
Click to expand...


He claimed Machen as Postmill whereas others have claimed him as amil: go figure.

With Warfield: I will actually agree with Dr Riddlebarger's conclusions on Warfield using amillennial exegesis to come to postmillennial conclusions. It doesn't change the outcome of Warfield's arguments anyway. The more "Bahnsenian" (not necessarily claiming Warfield would have followed Dr Bahnsen) route of postmillennialism has always argued that one can (and sometimes should) grant the amillennial premises and consistenly argue for a postmillennial conclusion.


----------



## govols

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> As for what Phil Johnson's view is, if he is an elder at Grace Church I assume he would have to be committed to the doctrinal statment of that Church which is dispensational through and through.
> Bryan
> SDG



Of course, dispensational carries too much baggage on this board.

JMJ only agrees with Ryrie on a few points.


----------



## rgrove

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I did notice that Sproul played fast and loose in who was postmill and who wasn't.


I find this to be the case in almost every book I read... One book after another by amills and postmills contradict one another on who is what. I've ended up buying more than a couple books by people in order to determine what person A might actually be. Kind of irritating in my opinion.

I suppose this could be a result of changing view, though? I mean, I've held to Dispensational, amill and postmill as well as futurism and partial preterism. If I were someone that wrote books and articles for publications like these guys, I suppose people might find my trail of eschatology nothing short of confusing resulting in many claiming me because they read article X instead of book Y which is all superceded by the current article Z. 

Yours In Christ,
Ron


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I did notice that Sproul played fast and loose in who was postmill and who wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> I find this to be the case in almost every book I read... One book after another by amills and postmills contradict one another on who is what. I've ended up buying more than a couple books by people in order to determine what person A might actually be. Kind of irritating in my opinion.
> 
> I suppose this could be a result of changing view, though? I mean, I've held to Dispensational, amill and postmill as well as futurism and partial preterism. If I were someone that wrote books and articles for publications like these guys, I suppose people might find my trail of eschatology nothing short of confusing resulting in many claiming me because they read article X instead of book Y which is all superceded by the current article Z.
> 
> Yours In Christ,
> Ron
Click to expand...


I almost forgot--Bruce Waltke used to be dispensational premillennial before becoming amillennial. That confused me when people in the 70's were critiquing his dispensational view.


----------

