Premillennialism: I'm taking the gloves OFF
For those readers of mine who might hold to a futurist or premillennial view on the end-times, I thought I’d put together a short list of odd beliefs coming from the premill position. Some of these points deal with Dispensationalism as well, not just premillennialism, given the fact that MacArthur is the one who has stirred up this controversy.
If you are premillennial, please don't be offended by my candor. I'm certainly not pulling any punches here, but I'm only trying to promote the study of scripture and the edification of the saints. This topic is extremely, extremely important to the Christian life, contrary to popular belief. However, please don't be mistaken, it is a secondary doctrine, and I extend the right hand of Christian fellowship to all my brothers and sisters who disagree with me on this issue.
Thus, for those who don’t know what position they hold, who can’t really defend what they believe, who only hold to premillennialism because that’s what good teachers like MacArthur hold to, and who like to think that Revelation should be read and interpreted like a historical narrative, here are a few points that premillennialism teaches, just so you can get a good idea of what you are subscribing to:
The Premill position teaches:
-That there will be a rapture and a second coming of Christ, -which is essentially two, separate comings of Christ, when the ‘literal’ interpretation of scripture only speaks of one.
-That there will be a judgment at the first coming of Christ, before the millennial kingdom, and a judgment after the millennium, thus they believe in two ‘final’ judgments.
-That there are actually 2 different, future ‘day(s) of the Lord’ spoken of by the prophets where God reigns down His wrath on mankind. Thus, even though Christ is supposed to be reigning from Israel with immortal believers during the millennium, and this reign is supposed to be one of ‘a rod of iron’, rebellion still occurs and the ‘day of the Lord’ must come even after 1000years of ‘peace’. Therefore, in reality, they believe in 2 ‘falls’ of mankind, so to speak, in that Adam and Eve fell and subjected the creation to futility by their sin, and that there is another fall after the millennium to again warrant punishment after God tries to restore peace and tranquility on earth.
-That Peter is warning us about the end of the millennium when he speaks of the ‘day of the Lord’ and the destruction of the earth in 2 Peter chapter 3. This must be the interpretation since the premill position affirms that the destruction of the earth comes after the millennium, rather than when Christ returns again.
-That the new covenant was made with Israel and NOT with the church (a dispensational/MacArthur belief).
-There will be a reinstitution of sacrifices, yes, real animal sacrifices on an altar in the rebuilt temple, during the millennial period when Jesus is physically sitting on the throne.
-That in the millennium, there will be people in glorified bodies walking around and reigning with Christ, but that there will be people in mortal bodies living here as well. And to add to that, these un-glorified, mortal people actually have the audacity to rise up against the glorified Jesus and the glorified saints who are reigning with Him. Obviously, we want to make a point now to spread the word that in the millennium, its best that glorified people don’t hang out with un-glorified neighbors :) (H.T. FIDE-O for pointing this out).
-That in Revelation 20, a chapter that speaks of a ‘key’, a ‘dragon’, a ‘bottomless pit’, ‘beheadings’, ‘gog and magog’, etc., that the term ‘a thousand years’ should actually be taken extremely literally just because it is used 6 times! This certainly is odd since the author says things like ‘until the thousand years are ended’, and ‘when the thousand years are ended’, referring to the period as ‘the thousand years’ instead of using a normal description of literal time such as ‘when one thousand years ended’, or ‘until one thousand years passed’, etc.
That’s enough for now. I just wanted to give a brief preview of some of the teachings of premillennialism for those of you who clearly hold this position only by default. Listen, you may not have a problem with some of the points above, but I most certainly do. I just can't get there with my new testament in hand, I just can't.
Let me just say this, folks: Christ is reigning right now, check your new testament. The final judgment and the second coming of Christ happen at the same time -just take the ‘literal’ plain sense of scripture. The glorification of believers happens when we are given new bodies, which happens at the 2nd coming of Christ, which happens at the same time when He defeats all His enemies, including sin and death (not death for some), and hands the kingdom over to the Father; refer to 1 Cor 15. The Day of the Lord isn’t interrupted by a 1000year gap, check 2 Peter chapter 3. Everlasting, eternal punishment awaits the wicked at Christ’s second coming, not 1000 years after Christ returns, read 2 Thess chapter 2. The creation itself is awaiting redemption from sin, just like we are, and this redemption isn’t temporary -only to be subjected again after the 1000years are over; study Romans 8. And finally, Jesus Himself said that Satan, the ruler of this world, has been cast out, and that Jesus is drawing all nations unto Himself, so reconcile that with a futuristic view Revelation 20.
Let us get back to the bible, not man’s tradition! The physical kingdom was being dreamed of by sinful, religious men in Jesus’ day; and in our day, the 'Left Behind' theology is proving to be just a re-packaging of these very same errors. Let us not fall into the same error the first century Jews fell into because they were looking for a physical kingdom and thus completely missed their Messiah! We have been given the scriptures, the final word, the complete new testament, we should be smarter and wiser than this.
SDG
15 Exhortations:
So... what're you really trying to say?
I disagree with a major portion of MacArthur's doctrine (oh no!!)!
I'm saying this: let those who don't know all the issues refrain from taking other teachers 'plain sense' interpretations of eschatological texts until they understand all the issues. That's all. Oh, and study your new testament, this issue is difficult, but not so much as it seems. :)
Wow, Nathan... impressive. In a single post, you've managed to take down MacArthur, Mohler, Piper, Grudem, all of Dallas Seminary, all of Master's Seminary, most of Talbot Seminary, most of Trinity Evangelical School, and most of the Southern Baptists (not to mention some historical giants like Barnabas, Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian ... and even guys like Charles Spurgeon.)
I'm sure none of them would be able to give a reasonable defense of the premill position (either historic or disp.). They must be so silly to believe all that stuff (especially since a good bit of your depiction is NOT what premillennialists actually believe).
For those who want an accurate look at premillennialism (and the guys at Fide-O are anything but accurate), get a copy of The Coming Millennial Kingdom edited by Townsend and Campbell, or Understanding End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware. You'll be much better served than through sloppy blog theology.
Next time, Nathan, until you really have your facts straight, keep the gloves on. When you punch like this, the only thing you're hurting is your own credibility.
Albert,
Philippians 2:3
"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves."
Although I am not judging your motives, I would to admonish you to be careful of a divisive spirit that arises from pride. We all have that tendency, but as brothers in sisters in Christ, we ought to uses these discussions to lift one another up, not tear each other down. Certainly, phrases like "You'll be much better served than through sloppy blog theology," does not convey a loving Christlike spirit.
As far as your comments:
While Nathan has managed to take down your list of people, he has managed to hold up the LBC 1689, all the puritans, Hodge, Edwards, Owens, etc. (which, by the way, are considered the greatest group of theologians in existence, hands down) and all the present reformed schools.
Davide,
When a young blogger accuses men like MacArthur of blindly adhering to "men's tradition"; and implies arrogant things like they "should be smarter and wiser than this," it is difficult to reply in a patient way.
Certainly it's okay to disagree. But it is something else entirely to portray many of our nation's godliest men as though they were total idiots.
Perhaps you found my comment out of line. But I don't believe it was any more outrageous than what Nathan is implying about MacArthur and company. (Is Nathan even theologically trained?)
By the way, I wouldn't be too quick to point to the Puritans as posterboys for supersessionism. It is well known that (although not premillennialists) the Puritans believed in a literal future for national Israel (including guys like Hodge, Edwards, and Owens).
It's easy to take shots from a blog. I guarantee you though, if Nathan ever talked to Dr. MacArthur about this in person, the gloves would go back on in a hurry.
Albert,
I know Nathan personally, and I can assure you that he and I regard both have a very high regard for John Macarthur. For a fact, Nathan has always personally expressed to me a deep respect and appreciation for him and his minstry. He's attacking the utter fallacy of premil, not the men who embrace it.
This post, more or less, was in response to Macarthur's recent sermon at the Shepherd's conference. Listen brother, if you have listened to this sermon and do not think that it was jam-packed with strawmen, then you are simply mistaken and need to take a little closer look at true amillenialism. As much as I love Macarthur, he, for a fact, misrepresented covenantal eschatology.
As for the Puritans believing in a future for the nation of Israel, you're right and wrong. Some of them did and some of them didn't. But this fact has no bearing on the validity of amillenialism, because today, the verdict concerning this issue is still split among amill's.
Without question, we all must work on saturating our dogma with love. For without love, we are just noisy, clanging cymbols.
Albert,
I appreciate your candor. I’m sorry you took such an offense at my ‘venting’ despite my pleas that my premill brothers don’t be offended. Let me make a few short points here regarding your comment:
• I am not denying that there are many sound men who are Premillennial. But, if this was a naming contest, I could put up just as much, if not more, of a formidable list of Amillennial Godly men/theologians.
• If you are going to accuse me of losing credibility by this post, then I would assume that you would hold the same standard to John MacArthur -who at the very least gave a very ignorant assessment of the Amill position in his Shepherds Conference sermon.
• Please don’t judge me as arrogant for making the statement that we should be better aware and avoid the errors of 1st century Judaism. I believe strongly in what I see in scripture, anything less would be a compromise. I also believe that if the scriptures are approached openly and honestly, premillennialism proves to be a foreign concept in God’s holy Word. I am only trying to challenge my brothers and sisters in Christ to read for themselves.
• Furthermore, I didn’t address any of the men holding the other position specifically. I mentioned MacArthur’s name only in reference to his sermon which got all this stirred up in the first place :) Thus, I am ‘attacking’ absolutely no one in particular. In fact, in my post, I didn’t even strive to make a clear argument against premillennialism! I simply pointed out a few things inherent within the system that do not coincide with scripture.
• The comment about me not being theologically trained was unnecessary and without warrant. Since when is this a requirement for studying scripture? Oh, that’s right, with dispensational premillennialism it sure is. That system is so stinking intrinsic that it requires a PHD just to explain and defend it. But let's leave the ad-hominem attacks to the Arminians, OK?
• The comment about me taking a different tone standing face to face with MacArthur is irrelevant since I did not even critique his specific teaching. But, while you’re at it, I wonder if MacArthur would take a different tone if RC Sproul was teaching at the Shep Conf this year as he has so many times in the past :)
Look, if you would like to point fingers and hurl ad-hominem attacks on me, please shoot me a private email. But if you would like interact with any of the scripture or arguments that I mentioned in my post, by all means, please do so. Deal with the content of what I said or please hold your comment (or gentle rebuke) about my tone to a private email conversation.
SDG
What I don't get is the accusation that Nathan has misrepresented modern premillennialism.
Every single thing he said they believe can be found in my ol' Ryrie Study Bible. Maybe Ryrie is not a good representative of Dispensationalism...? Say it ain't so.
Ok,
Nathan, you did cover the rapture thing, which is biblical, just not the timing of the pre-trib, pre-wrath stuff. Just as you said, it happens at the coming of Christ.
However
Albert,
The problem with your post is this: You have used ad hominem against Nathan. You have attacked and mocked his tone, character, and dare I say it, theological training??? Why not actually deal with the problems in the argument as you see them.
This is what disturbs me in the reformed community. Men exalt great bible teachers as though they cannot err. PLease!!! When MacArthur stoops to the level of actually believing that DNA can determine someones nationality (ehtnicity), you know that the position cannot hold water.
Furthermore, Dr. MacArthur kept saying that Israel meant Isael over and over again and couldn't mean anything else. Then he tried to link A-mils with Arminianism. Doesn't that sound like that famous phrase from the Arminians, "All" means "all" all the time and that's all "all"means? In light of reading Romans 9:1-4, he clearly distinguished that Israel doesn't always mean ethnic Israel. In light of Rom. 11 it is clear that "all" ethnic Israel won't be saved. But.......oh wait, if we are dispensationalists, then we don't take Romans 11 literally (using the ethnic Israel working definition) for that would mean that every single ethnic Israelite would be saved. However Christ's own words deny that. So who is closer to an Arminian position? Hmmm. I let you think on that one.
I do understand when your position is challenged that many will react the way you and others have. However, some may say it's secondary, this issue ultimately comes to the heart of what Christ accomplished, not what is waiting to be accomplished. When he completed His work, he ascended to the throne, sat down on that throne, which BTW is the promised throne of David, and rules until His enemies are made His footstool.
Finally,
as far as taking down Dallas Seminary.....well, eschatalogically yes! MacArthur says that everyone believes God deals with people different in different dispensations.......not me. God deals with men either in justice or mercy and grace. That is from eternity to eternity. God have never done otherwise. He may have pictured it different in different covenants, but He has always dealt with men the same way. He is unchanging and immutable. SDG
Okay, fair enough. I’ll agree to leave the "ad hominem" arguments at the door if Nathan is willing to do the same. In the comments at Fide-O, Nathan asserted that MacArthur was using “Dave Huntian type arguments” and that premillennialists are like arminians who speak boldly from the pulpit but are unwilling to defend it in the trenches. In this post, Nathan has essentially accused premillennialists of being modern-day Pharisees, blindly adhering to man’s tradition, who believe ridiculous figments of imagination, and need to be wiser and smarter. His tone has been one of condescension and ridicule – mocking those who would believe in a millennial reign of Christ. (“Obviously, we want to make a point now to spread the word that in the millennium, its best that glorified people don’t hang out with un-glorified neighbors.”)
I don’t mind Nathan’s disagreement. But when he compares men like MacArthur (whom he names multiple times in this post) to cowardly Dave-Hunt-type arminians more in line with the Jews who rejected Christ ... it crosses a line in my book.
Thus it seems a wee bit hypocritical for him to be offended by my ad hominem response, especially when I asked if he was theologically trained. His profile doesn’t say, and I was curious. (I didn't realize I would hit such a nerve.)
Also, for the record, Nathan’s statement: “Amillennialism (and it's sister, Post-millennialism) is by far the majority view among the ancient church fathers” is patently untrue. If you don’t believe me, check the wikipedia article on premillennialism. Premillennialism was the majority view in the early church.
Finally, one last thought: Nathan said that, “The New Jerusalem [is] the kingdom spoken of by the prophets.” But God promised the Jews that the restored kingdom would consist of “their own land which I gave to their fathers” (Jeremiah 16:15); “then they will live on their own soil” (Jer. 23:8; see v. 5); “this land has been given us as a possession” (Ezek. 11:15); “I will plant them on their land” (Amos 9:15); “I will bring them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon” (Zech. 10:10); “The Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed” (Deut. 30:5). It was the land their fathers had possessed that God promised to them; not some other land, be it on this earth or the new earth. (Other passages could be added to this list including: Isaiah 27:12; 30:23–26; 35:1–2; 65:21–24; Jeremiah 31:1–14; Ezekiel 20:42–44; 28:25–26; 34:25–31; Joel 2:18–27; 3:18; and, Amos 9:13.)
Ad hominems aside, I would be interested in hearing an amill response to the land covenant God made with Israel.
Albert,
The land promises are clearly expanded beyond the scope of a piece of land in Palestine. Just as the gospel goes forth proclaiming salvation past the borders of a nation called Israel into all the world, so too the promises are for the inheritance of the whole earth for the people of God.
What is amazing is that the premillienial view breaks up those in the covenant. Let me point that this is simply an overturning of what Christ accomplished. Paul, in the letter to the Ephesians 2:11-22 is so clear that Christ has broken down a wall that separates Jews and Gentiles. As a matter of fact, he points to the fact that Gentiles are now in the commonwealth of Israel (12-14) and that the two are NOW ONE NEW MAN. Premillenialism breaks them apart. Not only this, but the inspired apostle Paul, a Jew, is clear in the letter to the Galatians that the sons of Abraham are those by faith, not by the flesh.
So, it appears that you must include Gentiles in the promises you point out, unless you want to attempt to undo the work of Christ and reject the teaching of the New Testament apostles. This is not ad hominem.
MacArthur said in the message that if he couldn't know who Israel was, then he would be lost and that Old Testament would be darkness. AAMOF, the Old Testament, though special revelation, was dark for even some of the prophets. They constantly looked into these things to understand. However, whe the Light came into the world, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father said that we should hear Him. He opened the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures. Remember, these were guys believing the same things about the kingdom that their Pharisee leaders believed. But after Pentecost, we don't see such talk of a kingdom like they previously assumed. Rather, they point back to the fact that the resurrection of Christ points to the establishment of the kingdom and the ascension points to the King taking the throne. Now the promise of land is simply expanded to cover the entire globe and yes the meek shall inherit the earth. That message by the way was given by the King to JEWS in Matthew 5.
Albert,
You agree to leave the ad hominem arguments at the door…and yet you fill your comment with them until the final thought? That is not welcome here at all.
A few observations:
First, I would prefer to discuss the issues in this post. Not comments from other posts which you have taken out of context, not your defense of a person whom I didn’t even specifically criticize or critique, and not ‘land promises’ as a way to distract from the scripture I supplied within this post itself.
Secondly, the phrase ‘modern day Pharisee’ is your opinion, not mine, and I would gently warn you about attempting to judge the motives of others.
Next, if my attitude and tone cross the line in your book, there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with it. Email me personally, I welcome it. Or, get your own blog, then you can write all you want about it. But personal attacks on my character will not be tolerated.
The theologically trained comment garnered a reaction because of how underhanded and condescending it was. The definition of an ad-hominem is slandering or degrading a person’s character in an attempt to discredit their arguments. Implying that I wasn't trained is a underhanded attempt to discredit what I said. Again, this is uncalled for and will not be allowed here.
Lastly, why should I answer your land promises statement at all? You have attacked me personally and then you have not dealt with even one argument I made in my post. And yet, you want to give me a list of your questions to answer? Deal with my arguments and I will consider dealing with yours.
I’m sorry, I can easily answer your questions (the quick answer is that, if you go to every one of these passages, the land promises weren’t promised for 1000years period, but forever –something conveniently overlooked in your position given the fact that the earth is to be destroyed), but I honestly have no desire to interact with you given your tone. I would appreciate it if you took your comments somewhere else –unless you can completely refrain from personal insults. Please, consider the standard you are attempting to hold me to –consider it in light of your own statements, and even in light of MacArthur’s sermon, since you are so eager to defend another.
Nathan said: "That there will be a rapture and a second coming of Christ, -which is essentially two, separate comings of Christ, when the ‘literal’ interpretation of scripture only speaks of one."
Josh's Reply: Nathan, unless I missed it in the comments, your statement only describes Dispy Premill. Historical Premill sees the Rapture and the Second Coming as one event, just like us Amillers.
Nathan wasn't inclined to do it, but I have given my answer to the "land challenge" Charles posited at my blog.
Nathan,
I have to be candid as well :-) Of recent weeks I have seen a number of blog posts along the lines of "Why premillennialism is unBiblical." Hoping for a serious engagement--not with pretrib-old-hat-dispy views--but with serious minded premillers.
It is easy to refute pretrib-premillennialism and maybe that is why amiller sites have done so. But it is a whole-nother animal to engage with non-pretrib premillennialism, as I am sure you are aware of :-)
Not that there is nothing in common with the other, but the refuting of Scholfield and Ryrie is hackneyed in the blogosphere.
Speaking of which, there should be a radio debate with Premillennial Charles Cooper and Ammillennial Gene Cook on his radio show soon. Not sure when that will be or the arrangements but hopefully soon. That debate should check most of the critiques against blanket premillennialism.
At any rate, it is late... Thanks for my 2 cent bro.
Post a Comment