John MacArthur - Dispensationalism

[Reynolds]

I assumed nothing. I supported my view. Dispensational Calvinism seems a false flag operation.

You showed where a group of Calvinists were anti dispensational 500 years ago. Nothing more.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yet another dodge. My daddy is bigger than your daddy. I am right, your are wrong so there...

This is all they have, one false claim after another...

Van you made the claim that Calvinism means you don't believe in literal 1000 years. Yet MULTIPLE people have pointed out to you that there are plenty of Calvinists that DO believe in a literal 1000, myself included. Also two of the BIGGEST Calvinists do. John MacArthur and Steven Lawson. You are simply wrong on this issue, give it up.

 

[Reformed1689]

]The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), "We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth."

Here is a link to the whole Confession:
The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

The snippet is from Chapter 11, in the fourth "The Sects" subsection.

This what the last several Calvinist posts have been trying to bury is deflection.

 

[Reynolds]

Ever notice Calvinism is defended by attacking truth with false claims? Jesus taught us to stick with the truth, saying our yes should mean yes and our no should be no.
Did I appeal to authority? Nope I quoted a Reformed theologian teaching Dispensationalism departs from Reformed theology. But that point was ignored and a false claim was made. Does post #24 say Reformed theology and Dispensationalism are "incompatible?" Nope, I said Dispensationalism departs from Reformed Theology.

Such is the stuff of Calvinism, one falsehood after another by those who seem to hate truth.

Did you take logic and reasoning in college? Your ifs and thens are illogical. Dispensationalism departs from reformed theology because you found a group of reformed theologians who were anti dispensational 500 years ago?
You would need to prove that view was universal, or near universal, in reformed theology at that time, to justify your conclusion.

 

[Van]

You showed where a group of Calvinists were anti dispensational 500 years ago. Nothing more.

With as many threads presenting dark ages creeds as Calvinist gospel, you should be ashamed.

 

[Van]

Van you made the claim that Calvinism means you don't believe in literal 1000 years. Yet MULTIPLE people have pointed out to you that there are plenty of Calvinists that DO believe in a literal 1000, myself included. Also two of the BIGGEST Calvinists do. John MacArthur and Steven Lawson. You are simply wrong on this issue, give it up.

Yet another claim Calvinism as presented in well accepted creeds or confessions do not reject dispensationalism. The defense of false doctrine disowns the doctrine and claims it might mean anything. Shameless

 

[JesusFan]

Van you made the claim that Calvinism means you don't believe in literal 1000 years. Yet MULTIPLE people have pointed out to you that there are plenty of Calvinists that DO believe in a literal 1000, myself included. Also two of the BIGGEST Calvinists do. John MacArthur and Steven Lawson. You are simply wrong on this issue, give it up.

As did Spurgeon!

 

[JesusFan]

With as many threads presenting dark ages creeds as Calvinist gospel, you should be ashamed.

So all Creeds and Confessions are bad?

 

[timtofly]

Historical premil was the dominant church position until Augustine made Amil replace it!

I thought an Amil talked Augustine into disavowing the correct teaching from God's Word? Every one was looking forward to the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Then that thought was stolen and embellished by corrupt theology from that point on.

Augustine changed his mind by outside influence, not from reading Scripture. Then others pointed out, "if Augustine is ok with amill, what can be the harm in amil?".

 

[Reformed1689]

Yet another claim Calvinism as presented in well accepted creeds or confessions do not reject dispensationalism. The defense of false doctrine disowns the doctrine and claims it might mean anything. Shameless

Van, this just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Reformed1689]

With as many threads presenting dark ages creeds as Calvinist gospel, you should be ashamed.

With as many people proving you wrong and yet you double and triple down it is you who should be ashamed and embarrassed. But you are too prideful to quit.

 

[timtofly]

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), "We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth."

Here is a link to the whole Confession:
The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

The snippet is from Chapter 11, in the fourth "The Sects" subsection.

That is against postmill. A "golden age" is not a pre-mill view of the pious (eventually) subduing all their godless enemies.

 

[AustinC]

I thought an Amil talked Augustine into disavowing the correct teaching from God's Word? Every one was looking forward to the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Then that thought was stolen and embellished by corrupt theology from that point on.

Augustine changed his mind by outside influence, not from reading Scripture. Then others pointed out, "if Augustine is ok with amill, what can be the harm in amil?".

I have no idea where you got that thought.
As far as I know amillenialism prevailed from the Apostles to the 1800s when scientific minded Christian thinkers started attempting to systematize the Bible into dispensations. Until the 1800s dispensationalism was unknown.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Van, this just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

"Yet another off topic Calvinist post. Notice how the poster addresses my failure to ever answer a biblical argument ?"

 

[Van]

You are a hopeless case. Your hatred for Calvinism and Calvinists has completely clouded your judgment.

Yet another shoot the messenger rather than address the message post. Provincialism is a disease

Folks ask yourselves, how many threads have we had addressing the validity of Calvinist confessions and creeds? Dozens?

Here is a quote from one of the Calvinist posters:

Reformed Baptists are those who hold to a Confession of Faith, 1689 version, while most Baptists hold to Statement of beliefs local church...​

 

[timtofly]

I have no idea where you got that thought.
As far as I know amillenialism prevailed from the Apostles to the 1800s when scientific minded Christian thinkers started attempting to systematize the Bible into dispensations. Until the 1800s dispensationalism was unknown.

Revelation 20 was always a part of the book of Revelation. The 1,000 year reign is not a thought placed in Scripture by 19th century dispensationalism.

Amil would have been a heretical view claiming Revelation 20 was not literal. There was a lot of heresy prevailing since the first century. Is not "gnosticism" the same thing as "scientific"?

At what point in history has pre-mill ever been considered heretical?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

@Van, this is not the CvA Forum, So stop with the anti-Calvinist posts.

 

[AustinC]

Revelation 20 was always a part of the book of Revelation. The 1,000 year reign is not a thought placed in Scripture by 19th century dispensationalism.

Amil would have been a heretical view claiming Revelation 20 was not literal. There was a lot of heresy prevailing since the first century. Is not "gnosticism" the same thing as "scientific"?

At what point in history has pre-mill ever been considered heretical?

It seems obvious you struggle with apocalyptic language. John was not being literal, despite you wanting him to think like you.
Pre-mill just wasn't a view in the early church. They didn't think like you.

 

[37818]

It seems obvious you struggle with apocalyptic language. John was not being literal, despite you wanting him to think like you.
Pre-mill just wasn't a view in the early church. They didn't think like you.

Revelation 20:1-6, ". . . And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. . . ."
There is absolutely no reason not to take this as it says. Except some kind of unbelief.

 

[percho]

knowing that Christ, having been raised up out of the dead, doth no more die, death over him hath no more lordship; Rom 6:9 YLT

for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive, and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence, then -- the end, when he may deliver up the reign to God, even the Father, when he may have made useless all rule, and all authority and power -- for it behoveth him to reign till he may have put all the enemies under his feet -- for it behoveth him to reign till he may have put all the enemies under his feet -- 1 Cor 15:22-26 YLT

To date, one, only one, man born of woman has been resurrect out of the dead to die no more,

As stated above from 1 Cor 15 a first-fruit [singular] Christ. That took place roughly 2000 years ago, I assume.
Also states above in V 23 the next in order to be made alive, resurrected out of the dead, are those who are Christ's.

What about the rest of the dead? Verse 24 continues on about the end [of something] and V 26 speaks of the last enemy being death.

Now there are other places that speak of the dead being raised. Words like hour and last day and maybe others are used and must be reconciled to the above. Can that be done and the Word of God be truth? It better, can be, or we are in a lot of trouble.

When will the order of the rest of the dead not specifically mentioned in 1 Cor 15 take place. At what hour on what day?
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8

Could it come on an hour, at the end of, the Day of the Lord and be truth of the Word of God? Rev 20?

What about this ruling with Christ. When does Matt 19:28 seem to imply that will take place? What about the parable from Luke 19:11- 19 Is it after the nobleman has returned that they are given authority over cities? What do you believe that parable is about? Why did God give them that parable? From V 11 Because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.