John MacArthur and Premillennialism
- -Amillennialism (and it's sister, Post-millennialism) is by far the majority view among the ancient church fathers. I have found that three mainstream groups just absolutely hate to hear about church history: the Arminians, the Charismatics, and yes, the Dispensationals. All three downplay church history as if WE are ‘more educated’ and ‘more evolved’ in our understanding of scripture, and that the old guys missed the boat. History doesn't determine truth, but it will guard you from modern-day fads and errors. 1800 years+ overwhelming hurts the 3 positions above. Nobody misses such important doctrines for that long.
- -Amillennialism does not teach that the promises to
- -Amillennialism does not deny the reality of a kingdom in which the OT promises are fulfilled! The premillennialists believe that an earthly, temporal kingdom will come before sin and death are done away with, and before the ‘final’ judgment (remember, with premillennialism, they have two ‘judgments’). Amillennialism, however, believes that when Christ returns, it is ‘curtains’ on sin, death, and the ONE final judgment, and that the New Jerusalem, as described in a number of NT texts, will be the reality of the kingdom spoken of in prophecy. Please, if you doubt this, go back and read all of the quotes MacArthur gave out of the OT. Find ONE that indicates that the kingdom spoken of is temporal in nature and not eternal. But, the Premill kingdom is temporal because of the rebellion at the end of Revelation 20 and the destruction of the earth in 2 Peter 3.
- -Amillennialism doesn’t teach that the church has replaced
- -MacArthur unfortunately did not deal with any of the NT texts that present very large problems with his Premill views. In fact, they present more than large problems with premillennialism, they indicate that premillennialism is in fact a recent figment of imagination. Texts like: 1 Cor. 15:22-28; 1 Cor. 15:50-57; Rom. 8:18-23; 2 Pet. 3:8-13; Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:5-10; and John 5:28-29 (I have posted on many of these texts, do a search of this blog for my articles). It would have been very helpful if he would have simply acknowledged these texts and attempted to give a brief explanation of them.
- -And to this list, I will add what the Fide-O team has said:
What Amillennialism Is Not: - It does not deny the existence of a "millennium."
- It does not require one to be a pedobaptist or immersionist.
- It does not symbolize everything in the Bible.
- It does not have a non-literal understanding of the Bible.
- It does not hold to a literal "golden age" on earth like the many Postmillenarians.
- It is not "replacement theology."
- It is not anti-semetic.
FIDE-O:
Justin Taylor (John Piper's editor):
Team Pyro (from the Pre-Mill position):
Kim Riddlebarger:
14 Exhortations:
Excellent dear brother. This was a delight to read and the links are invaluable.
I share your views and concerns.
Keep for the glory of the Lord.
Campi
Woe! Wait a minute.....Campi is not Premil?? or did you not just like the way MacArthur portrayed A-mil? Just teasing. Although I am surprised if you are A-mil after some conversation the other year.
Nathan,
Great post. I do have a question though and that is what is convincing to you concerning the New Jerusalem being heaven and not the church, the Lamb's wife (Rev. 21:9)?
"Amillennialism (and it's sister, Post-millennialism) is by far the majority view among the ancient church fathers."
That argument sounds pretty Catholic.
Steve,
Thanks for the encouragment, brother. Here and on Dan’s blog.
Tim,
Maybe I should've clarified it as the 'heavenly' Jerusalem, or maybe as the city 'whose designer and builder is God.' Nevertheless, although there is imagery used to describe the body of Christ as the New Jerusalem, I believe they are one in the same: both a city and the bride of Christ.
Daniel,
Good to hear from you again. Your comment sounds like its coming from one of the three positions that I mentioned who make church history out to be a small thing. My only point was to show that Amillennialism isn’t some crazy doctrine that does not have any kind of root in scripture or the history of the faithful men of old. It is firmly rooted in both.
Nathan,
Over at Dan's blog........now you see why I can't stand to read him:) His whole tone is......well.....uncharitable at best. I noticed he still hasn't actually dealt with any real arguments against his position......Hmmmmmm......I wonder why?
Nathan, I've read your blog for some time and always enjoy your interesting perspective on things. From an "outsider's" pov, however, I ask this: if believers are indwelt of the Holy Spirit, how is there so much room for disagreement and dissension? If one can be "saved" and still be "deceived" on so many issues, how is one to know that they are correct on anything?
Further, if even among "saved" Christians there is disagreement on a topic based on their reading of Scripture, where is the "final authority" of what that Scripture passage means? Alright, so Scripture interprets Scripture, but it takes someone to READ it, yes? When two people reading it do not come to the same conclusion (whether it's about A-mil or anything, for that matter), where do they go to resolve the dispute?
- James
James,
Let me guess: your solution to the wrenching dilemma you've posited is...the Catholic Magisterium?
Nathan,
Just a technical clarification. You stated that the church has been "grafted into Israel and has been made beneficiaries of the promises."
Actually, I would say that the the tree IS the Church. The church has never been grafted into anything. The elect Gentiles were grafted in the tree, but the tree was spiritual Israel (Church). And, of course, the branches that broke off was non-elect Israel.
So, in actuality, the church never replaced Israel, it always was Israel.
Gordan: Don't assume I'm Catholic just so you can discard and ignore my question. If two believers (who we must assume are "saved") disagree on how to interpret a passage from Scripture, how is the issue resolved? Who is the final authority? Scripture? Okay, well, what if they both disagree on which passage interprets that passage? Are you saying this never occurs?
- James
James,
Scripture along is the final say in all matters. Of course there is differing interpretations of scripture, but for the most part, and especially on the important things, scripture is clear. Individual sin and tradition are often the things taht hinder a proper interpretation, and so we must wade through things like that when searching for the proper understanding. Instead of the disagreements, I think it is wonderous that Christianity has so many who agree on the essentials.
Then again, diversity to a certain extent is the beauty of Christianity. Clearly the Bible wasn't written from the mind of man, because man would have fixed things so there would be no question as to what any of it is saying. That is the essance of living by the Spirit: those who have the Spirit come to a proper understanding of the scriptures; those who don't have the Spirit do not. It isn't the letter of the law, it is life in the Spirit.
All disputes must and can be resolved with the scriptures. Some, however, refuse to recognize their error, and so it appears as if there is no hope. But...there is only one true meaning, and hopefully we all acknowledge that. For without that, we have nothing.
SDG
Davide,
Maybe you misunderstood me. I wasn't denying the reality of the 'church' in the OT, I was simply saying that the 'grafting in' refers to gentiles. There has always been one church, but the gentiles were not fully welcomed in until the the rebellion of the Jews and the death of Jesus. That is the essance of the new covenant.
The scriptures were written by Jews; the apostles were all Jews; the law was given to the Jews; the covenants were all given to the Jews; and most importantly, we have a Jewish Messiah. I certainly believe that Israel is the true vine in which we have been grafted into.
....and don't forget that we know they were Jews because they had Jewish DNA:)
Davide and Nathan,
To me that is the primary error of MacArthur. You hear him read Rom. 9:1-4 and you hear him read and even state there is a difference between national and the true Israel. Why does he not then follow through instead of saying, like the Arminians(emphasis mine:) say "all" means "all" all the time and that's all "all" means, that Israel only means ethnic Israel.
On the Jewish DNA thing though, when you through that out, you are merely looking for something to stick. What made Abraham a Jew? Isaac? Jacob? His 12 sons? Their generations? How does DNA prove "national" identiity? Would my DNA prove I'm American? Though MacArthur is a dear brother, he is completely off base here.
I did get the message finally and will be posting I hope in the future on it. I am taking a brief break in Revelation and we are going over it at Church.
Nathan,
I noticed that you chose not to link to John MacArthur's blog (pulpitmagazine.com), which ran a week's worth of articles on premillennialism. Any reason?
Albert,
No, no reason. I have a link to that blog on my sidebar and really enjoy that blog. But, at the time I posted this, I wasn't aware that they were doing a series on premillennialism. After reading the arguments, however, I was a little disappointed. Its like they've got blinders over their eyes that keeps them from seeing their obvious errors. I would encourage any and all readers to check out the articles at this site and to feel free to present any one of those arguments to me as a question.
SDG
Post a Comment