Featured True or false statement?

I remember seeing a while ago some quotes from early church Fathers who seemed to hold to a type of dispensationalism. I think it might have been in Ryrie's Book Dispensationalism

 

If I have time later and can find them I might.

 

Because he's smart?

 

Hahaha, not a chance.

 

s

Could you tell me how you define Theologian. What makes one a Theologian?


God bless.

 

I have researched every single quote that Pre-tribbers provide for their intepretative view of the "imminent return" of Christ in early sources. In every instance, those they quote, do in fact support an imminent return of Christ BECAUSE every context either assumes the church is already in the tribulation period being persecuted by the antichrist or anticipates that, and it is in that context they speak of an imminent expectation.

They fail to distinguish between historic premillenianism and pre-trib premillennialism and they are not the same as historical pre-mill are post-tribbers and they speak of imminency from a tribulation point of view according to Luke 21:28

And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Historic Pre-millennialists interpreted "these things" in the context to begin with those things that indicated the end had come upon them beginning with the revelation of the abomination rather than with those things Christ denied indicated the end was near. This division between things that do not indicate the end is near versus those things that do are best seen in the fuller version found in Matthew 24-25. Those things that characterize every generation but build like birth pangs which do not indicate the end has come are listed in Matthew 24:5-14. Those things that indicate the end has come upon them are listed in Matthew 24:15-29. Historical Premillenialists expressed the imminent return of Christ when they were describing the church existing during those things listed in Matthew 24:15-29 but NEVER expressed that expectation when dealing with a pre-trib period.

Unfortunately, the pre-trib imminent doctrine is based upon basic fundamental exegetical errors. They can't see that Matthew 24:36 is no different than Acts 1:6-7 and both are dealing with the post-tribulation coming of Christ. His coming in Acts 1:6-7 at which time he restores Israel to the kingdom is unknown to all but the Father as much as Matthew 24:36 which is merely the conclusion to the parable of all the trees, which has one main purpose - to prove that there are necessary preceding events to his coming.

 

John MacArthur is quite possibly the greatest Theologian of our day.

A simple definition from Merriam-Webster:


Simple Definition of theologian

: a person who is an expert on theology

Full Definition of theologian

1. : a specialist in theology

One cannot engage in Expository Preaching apart from being a Theologian. That is what John does.

And there is not one Biblical Theme R.C. has "focused on," lol, that Mac Arthur has not also presented. Unless of course we assume that R.C.s teaching is absolutely correct. Which it is not. For example, their differing views on Eschatological matters is quite distinct, yet the two remain friends and often help each other in conferences. Both of these men have stood in opposition to ecumenical movements shoulder to shoulder.

I admire both of these Theologians, and while I don't agree with both of them on every Biblical Theme, both are excellent teachers and preachers. And like all preachers and teachers, we test that which they teach, and compare it with Scripture. Where we might disagree, we then have a responsibility to study and let the Word of God determine what is correct.

And as a whole, John's teaching is better, and this is a result of his exegetical skill.

Again, I am amazed at the notion that "John MacArthur is not a theologian." Quite possibly one of the most absurd statements I have seen on any forum at any time.

And I am not busting your chops, E, just pointing out that this quite absurd. You ask R.C. if John is a Theologian and see what He thinks.

By the way, I would suggest "Expository Preaching" by John. Great book.


God bless.

 

John Macarthur is not a Baptist. He admits sprinkled, poured or non-baptized people into his membership. In tape 3 of his debate with RC over the mode of baptism he openly admits to receiving such members into his congregation as does John Piper, and Alister Begg's churches. These are not "Baptists' and their churches are not Baptist and neither do they claim to be Baptists (except Piper). Their congregations are not NT churches as a NT. church does a NT church receive sprinkled, poured or unimmersed members nor do they receive immersed members from apostate denominations.

 

Coming back to the discussion, at least as it relates to historical theology and dispensational premillism, has anyone read or come accross the findings of Alan Boyd's thesis, "A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (until the Death of Justin Martyr)" from 1977. Yes it is dated, but since it deals w/ the ancient church, that doesn't matter too much.

He concluded that Ryrie's & Walvoord's system of prophecy (namely pretribism and premillism) was "invalid" with the understanding of the early church fathers.

He stated, "[T]his thesis would conclude that the eschatological beliefs of the period studied would be generally inimical to those of the modern system (perhaps, seminal amillennialism, and not nascent dispensational premillennialism ought to be seen in the eschatology of the period)." (pp. 90-91).

What makes this thesis critical is that it was written at Dallas Seminary during the glory days of the Dispie Trinity (Ryrie, Walvoord, & Pentecost) for Boyd's ThM!!! This wasn't written at a seminary that was partial to amill theology. It was written in the capital of Classical Dispensationalism.

 

He might have moved toward Progressive Dispensationalism. (At any rate, you can see this among the younger men at TMS like Michael Vlach as opposed to the recently retired Robert Thomas.) But I haven't seen him give one inch on pre-trib or the Israel/Church distinction. I haven't seen any evidence that he has changed his views in the past 20-25 years. As early as "Faith Works" he said that dispensationalism only has to do with ecclesiology and eschatology as opposed to the DTS men who would speak of a dispensational view of sanctification, etc. He basically just thinks that dispensationalism went too far with the doctrinaire assertion of seven dispensations, the carnal Christian teaching, etc. In the recent book edited by MacArthur and Mayhue ("Christ's Prophetic Plans") the reader is referred to books by the likes of LaHaye and Charles Feinberg for further reading. So I don't see that his eschatology has really changed at all.

If you are referring to New Covenant Theology (NCT) as expressed by J. Reisinger, etc, almost all of them don't want to have anything to do with any form of premil, even post-trib. I've encountered a good many of them through the years, and they generally won't entertain any other view besides amil. The article by Dennis Swanson that you linked examines NCT but is critical of it. IIRC around that time TMS had a faculty lecture series that was critical of it, especially for its rejection of dispensational (or "futurist premillennial") eschatology.

 

This had to do with the 7 dispensations and the fact that earlier writers from Augustine to several in the Reformation and Post-Reformation eras had published somewhat similar schemes. But this had nothing to do with pre-trib, as Ryrie acknowledges in the book, IIRC. Few if any of them even held to premil. Augustine was the primary influence in moving the early church away from premillennialism.

Now, some have asserted that some older writers seem to have taught pre-trib. I don't have that information before me. But I think I've seen quotes from Pseudo-Ephrem (?), Cotton Mather, John Gill and several others. Posting that might get us somewhere. I think at least some of that can be found at the Pre Trib Research Center site. I recall one or more essays in "When the Trumpet Sounds" that also get into this.

 

Strictly speaking, this is correct, at least with regard to historic Baptist confessions and statements of faith. And I'm not sure that he's ever referred to himself as a Baptist. Another factor is elder rule church government, which many would say is also not Baptist. From what I understand, MacArthur's Grace Community Church never votes on anything.

Other than Ryrie, few if any of the big names from DTS (and hence dispensationalism) were Baptists. Many of them, such as Walvoord, Pentecost and Chafer began as Presbyterians, and Chafer was a Presby to the end of his days. Many independent Bible churches either began as Presbyterian (or maybe Congregationalist) or else were formed by those from that kind of background. They tend to have elder rule church government and do not insist on immersion or (maybe) even baptism at all as a condition of church government. (Elder rule is not the same as the elder-led congregationalism espoused by the likes of Mark Dever, FWIW.)

Many Landmarkers and similar types would decry the dispensational emphasis on the universal church and the teaching that the church began at Pentecost instead of some earlier point in the Gospels.

That being said, I don't quite see how this applies to the OP unless the idea is that dispensationalism is "Protestant theology" as opposed to "Baptist theology," as some non-dispensational landmarkers would put it.