Most formidable theologian from "the other side?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
F.F. Bruce wrote many valuable books, some of which helped me as I was in the midst of embracing the truth of the Scriptures and rejecting mainline liberalism and cultism, but he wasn't even an inerrantist, so there are more issues there. But a rejection of inerrancy and an embrace of even some of the wildest forms of charismania can go hand in hand, as seen with Fuller Seminary and Peter Wagner, etc.

Dr. Carson is generally classified as a continuationist, based I think on his book on 1 Cor 12-14.
 
If we're talking about actual books, (hopefully Dr. Henebury will get his into print soon with all the irons he has in the fire) I'd say Michael Vlach on issues like the kingdom and "replacement theology" and Matt Waymeyer on things like combating Riddlebarger et al on "Two Age" eschatology. Dr. Henebury recently said that Vlach's new book on the kingdom is the one (i.e. first) book he'd give to anyone wanting to know the Dispensational approach to Scripture. I will say that Dr. Henebury's take on the Nicene Council's 95 theses against dispensationalism pretty much shook what was left of any amil conviction to the core about 10 years ago, but in retrospect, trying to come up with 95 theses usually results in advancing arguments that are either not that strong or that are just repetition. But it just about made a dispensationalist out of me until I started reading some older covenant premil writers. But I need to begin a more in-depth study soon. As far as Bock and Blaising go, I don't know. Perhaps I wrongly see that is mainly an intra-dispensational squabble. Saucy is another one. I've got most of those books and either need to read them or get rid of them, as I noted in another thread. Vlach seems to be sort of in between Progressive Dispensationalism and the "revised" school of Ryrie, McClain, etc. He's closer to the trads on things like the kingdom but doesn't seem to have any interest in dispensations based on what I've read of him so far.

For amil, I suspect Hoekema and his more "earthy" or "material" brand of amil may be more persuasive to me than Riddlebarger or Storms at this point, as Hoekema does more to present a "positive" view rather than mostly focusing the guns at LaHaye and Lindsey, who I've never followed to begin with. (The kind of amil that I was exposed to early on among certain Calvinistic Baptists basically of viewed the kingdom as being an entirely spiritual matter and was the kind of thing that postmils and premils alike charged with being almost gnostic. I understand Hoekema represented a clear move away from that. Waldron has noted this as well, and this was one of the few concessions he made in his review of Horner's "Future Israel.")

For postmil, maybe Chilton or some of the older writers from the 19th Century and prior.
Would you see much of a difference between say Historical premil and Covenant Premil views?
 
Would you see much of a difference between say Historical premil and Covenant Premil views?

There can be, although many dispensationalists cannot or will not make a distinction since their thing is a hard and absolute distinction between Israel and the Church. A lot of non-premils aren't interested in making any distinctions between forms of premil either.

I sort of use covenant premil alternately to refer to what you might call Puritan views on spirituality, the Moral Law, etc. as well as one's ecclesiology. So to my way of thinking, a Progressive Dispensationalist can't be a covenant premil because he rejects covenant theology and rejects the third use of the law, Sabbatarianism, etc. But if they say that Abraham is in the church in any way, even in glory, then they've left dispensationalism behind, or at least in its traditional form. This was one of the huge issues even within the Plymouth Brethren with the rise of Darbyism. (With some of these questions, we're probably in danger of derailing this thread.)

I think this transcription of part of a Francis Schaeffer lecture is a fairly succinct presentation of covenant premillennialism. It's not too far off from some forms of Progressive Dispensationalism (to the extent that I understand it) but PDs reject covenant theology. The timing of the rapture doesn't necessarily make you a covenant premil or a Dispensational, although many will try to argue otherwise. (The way the camps are separated now, it is a pretty good marker, however.)

I'm not much of an authority on George Eldon Ladd, but reportedly (according to his biographer) he rejected any form of covenant theology. If that's accurate, I'm not sure how you can do that and still be a "covenant premil" or a covenant anything. A lot of Dispensationalists would probably say he was because of his views of Israel and the church.

Historic premil is sort of just a shorthand for post-trib. The term doesn't really tell you much beyond that. Some forms of "historic" premil bear little resemblance to older premils of maybe the 17th-19th Centuries, and thus aren't very "historic."
 
Last edited:
How would you distinguish between these two views?
My understanding is that many holding to Historical premil, like myself and Spurgeon, still saw some hope for national Israel at time of the Second Coming, while normally Covenant premil would not.
Also, many historical premils still would see a future antichrist and great tribulation yet to come, do not know if Covenant premil would also.
 
My understanding is that many holding to Historical premil, like myself and Spurgeon, still saw some hope for national Israel at time of the Second Coming, while normally Covenant premil would not.

I sort of see it as the opposite. Most of the older premils who saw a restoration of Israel were covenant theologians of some sort or another. Examples include Spurgeon, Ryle, the Bonars, M'Cheyne. Whereas Ladd and those who followed basically agree with amils on "unfulfilled" OT prophecy. (Apparently Ladd wasn't covenantal. Grudem is, I think, but those "Historic Premils" at SBTS and others of like mind are not.)

The term "covenant premil" doesn't appear to be in wide use today. The most recent use of it that I can recall (by those with any sort of academic credentials) is by dispensationalists, many of whom think that if you're not a dispensationalist then you're CT, even if you are NCT or something similar.

There isn't general agreement on what some of the more common terms mean, (such as Reformed Baptist, dispensational, etc.) so I doubt that there is much on "covenant premil" either even though I'd be more apt to affirm that label than "historic premil" which to me doesn't really mean anything at all other than a rejection of pre-trib.
 
Last edited:
I sort of see it as the opposite. Most of the older premils who saw a restoration of Israel were covenant theologians of some sort or another. Examples include Spurgeon, Ryle, the Bonars, M'Cheyne. Whereas Ladd and those who followed basically agree with amils on "unfulfilled" OT prophecy. (Apparently Ladd wasn't covenantal. Grudem is, I think, but those "Historic Premils" at SBTS and others of like mind are not.)

The term "covenant premil" doesn't appear to be in wide use today. The most recent use of it that I can recall is by dispensationalists, many of whom think that if you're not a dispensationalist then you're CT, even if you are NCT or something similar.

There isn't general agreement on what some of the more common terms mean, so I doubt that there is much on "covenant premil" either even though I'd be more apt to affirm that label than "historic premil" which to me doesn't really mean anything at all other than a rejection of pre-trib.
Based upon the premise as you described the term, then I must fall under the Covenant premil label, at least in regards to how seeing second coming and Israel working out.
 
Based upon the premise as you described the term, then I must fall under the Covenant premil label, at least in regards to how seeing second coming and Israel working out.

I don't know how many will accept what I've written on this over the past few years (and it hasn't been much), especially since I have no formal theological education whatsoever, but that's basically the way I see it. :2cents:

The mantra "There is unity and diversity within the covenant of grace" along the lines of what Schaeffer said (although I'm not quite with him on the sacraments) is basically where I am now although it is bewildering at best to others, I'm sure.
 
F.F. Bruce wrote many valuable books, some of which helped me as I was in the midst of embracing the truth of the Scriptures and rejecting mainline liberalism and cultism, but he wasn't even an inerrantist, so there are more issues there. But a rejection of inerrancy and an embrace of even some of the wildest forms of charismania can go hand in hand, as seen with Fuller Seminary and Peter Wagner, etc.

Dr. Carson is generally classified as a continuationist, based I think on his book on 1 Cor 12-14.
FF Bruce was much better in regards to how he viewed the NT books, than his view on the OT books, as he bought into much of the liberal critical views on how were formed and gathered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top