Total depravity and Genesis 4:7

[psalms109:31]

Since it says God loved the world that He sent His Son which makes it a universal call, so no matter how you try to translate it, it is still whosoever believes will be saved and belief here is to believe in Him over your own beliefs and take His yoke on you and listen and learn not just listen. There is those who have listen and heard in hell right now because they did not believe or listened to learn.

 

[thomas15]

The over-arching problem is that some refuse to see that the Bible affirms both the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Some deny one aspect all together; some put the emphasis on the secondary aspect. But, make no mistake, both are affirmed--but the affirmation of both is scripturally weighted in such a way that it is God who first acts and man responds.

The Archangel

Are you directing your comments to me personally because you think I don't have an understanding of the God of the Bible or are you just making general comments edification of all?

 

[Van]

Scripture alone

Again, HOW does anyone know here on this board that Cain is unregenerate, or remained unregenerate throughout his life ?
The question originally posed, taken from Webdog's own post, is WHY SHOULD AN OMNISCIENT GOD DEMAND OBEDIENCE AND REPENTANCE, OR THAT SIN BE OVERCOME, FROM ANYONE WHEN HE (GOD) HIMSELF KNOWS THE MAN IS TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF THEM WITHOUT HIS HELP UNLESS HE HAS ENABLED HIM FIRST ?

We will go round and round this tree and come back where we started scratching our behinds until we accept the fact that Scripture teaches man is totally spotted with sin and unable, like the leopard, to do anything to change his spots.

Unless I missed something, we know that no one was regenerated before Christ died on the cross. We know we are saved by the washing of regeneration. Therefore, using two separate lines of evidence, Cain was not regenerated when God told him he could rule over sin.

1) Scripture does not say Cain was regenerated, yet everyone from Adam on is conceived in an unregenerate state, spiritually dead, separated from God.

2) No OT saint was made perfect, by the washing of regeneration, before the New Covenant in His blood was inaugurated.

3) Therefore in the absence of evidence saying Cain was regenerated, we know he did not follow Christ in the regeneration before Christ was regenerated, by logical necessity.

Webdog's statement accepts the premise that Genesis 4:7 does not mean what it says. Reversing the question, how could anyone believe God would require that we turn to God and trust in Christ for salvation, unless He gave us the capacity to turn to God and trust in Christ. No one would.
Calvinism claims we are conceived without that ability, but scripture says we are conceived with that ability. That is why God hardens hearts, to remove that ability. That is why Jesus taught in parables, to preclude folks from using their ability and be healed before the timing was right.

We are unable to change our spots, but our spots do not preclude us from seeking God some of the time, setting our minds on some spiritual things, and entering heaven provided we are cultivated, planted and watered with the gospel of Christ.

1) Scripture says no one seeks God, but it does not say no one seeks God at any time, and provides a boat load of examples where men do seek God through works and through faith.

2) Scripture says a mind set on flesh cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God, but does does not say men of flesh cannot understand the milk of the Gospel. Therefore, some spiritual things, i.e. the milk of the gospel, can be understood by men of flesh when they do not have their minds set on fleshly desires.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Unless I missed something, we know that no one was regenerated before Christ died on the cross.

Beg to differ with you. Job is the oldest book in the Bible. Is it your contention that Job was unregenerate when God dealt with him ? As were his three friends ?

We know we are saved by the washing of regeneration.

This interpretation is in itself subject to debate. Are we saved by the washing of regeneration, or are we saved by the blood of Christ ? The word "saved" here bears looking into. Is this the "all by grace, none of man's works, but all OF the Lord" 'saved', or is this the 'saved' state which Peter exhorted the Jews to get themselves into when he cried out to them, "save yourselves from this untoward generation".
Undoubtedly, the washing of regeneration does save, but if the washing of regeneration can save us to heaven and to eternity, what for did Christ go up the cross to that horrible and degrading kind of death when He could simply save us by the washing of regeneration ?

Therefore, using two separate lines of evidence, Cain was not regenerated when God told him he could rule over sin.

Yet in another thread, somebody accuses Calvinists (which I am not) of making a monster out of God. I suppose it was because Calvinists teach the sovereignty of God in election ? Yet when God requires Cain, an offspring of Adam whom He Himself with His own hands created out of the earth, to rule over sin knowing fully well Cain can not, I suppose God was not being monstrous, but simply playful ?

1) ............ yet everyone from Adam on is conceived in an unregenerate state, spiritually dead, separated from God.

agreed.

2) No OT saint was made perfect, by the washing of regeneration, before the New Covenant in His blood was inaugurated.

How do you know that ? Paul writes of a man he knows who was taken up to the third heaven who heard unspeakable things. Obviously, he was referring to himself. How do you know that among those speakable (is that a word?) things he heard, the teaching of the washing of regeneration was not one ?

Physicists discover laws of the physical universe around them, and many of them forget that those laws have already and have always been there from the beginning. So with Chemists. They can and may experiment with chemical formulations but the outcome is not something they can claim as a discovery. The outcome is the result of laws of reactions that have always been that way.

How do you know that the washing of regeneration has not always been the way God dealt with His elect, and that Paul was not teaching something new but something which he has been privileged to be allowed to learn and pass on?

3) Therefore in the absence of evidence saying Cain was regenerated, we know he did not follow Christ in the regeneration before Christ was regenerated, by logical necessity.

Please elucidate on this point further.

Webdog's statement accepts the premise that Genesis 4:7 does not mean what it says.

I don't know about that.

Reversing the question, how could anyone believe God would require that we turn to God and trust in Christ for salvation, unless He gave us the capacity to turn to God and trust in Christ. No one would.

Therefore, God must FIRST quicken, then DEMAND responsibility. How can he demand something of one He clearly knows is incapable of performing the action. Even in our fallen world, we know that is not fair. Here's scripture:

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
And hath raised us up together , and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Calvinism claims we are conceived without that ability, but scripture says we are conceived with that ability.

Then give the Scriptures.

That is why God hardens hearts, to remove that ability.

So, according to your statement and belief, God is toying around with the human race ? He wants mankind saved, but, first He must remove their ability to believe in Him by hardening their hearts ?

This makes me recall what I watched a few days ago on Discovery Channel. Lioness catches a newborn Wildebeest, just out of the womb and learning to use its legs, not knowing what a predator is, lioness not really hungry so she toys around with the wildebeest by letting her run then pressing down on her with her paws.

That is why Jesus taught in parables, to preclude folks from using their ability and be healed before the timing was right.

That's not how I recall that Scripture. From what I remember, the apostles asked Jesus why He taught the masses in parables, and yet taught them directly, and His answer was : to you it is given, to them it is not. But of course, I may be wrong on this one, and you may be right, since you did not say anything about condemnation, but healing, which are two far different things.

We are unable to change our spots, but our spots do not preclude us from seeking God some of the time, setting our minds on some spiritual things,

So are you saying that the leopard can sometimes act like a lamb on its own?
that it can actually suppress its wildness and seek peace with its surroundings?

and entering heaven provided we are cultivated, planted and watered with the gospel of Christ.

I beg to differ again. We do not enter heaven because of good news, which is what the gospel is. The gospel is good FOR TIME, it is the good news of a finished salvation delivered to those who are saved and redeemed, not those who will be, or about to be, or ought to be saved and redeemed.

1) Scripture says no one seeks God, but it does not say no one seeks God at any time, and provides a boat load of examples where men do seek God through works and through faith.

2) Scripture says a mind set on flesh cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God, but does does not say men of flesh cannot understand the milk of the Gospel. Therefore, some spiritual things, i.e. the milk of the gospel, can be understood by men of flesh when they do not have their minds set on fleshly desires.

Here's what Scripture says:
Romans 8:7-8
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be .
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned .

 

[kyredneck]

Abel was both a Shepherd and a prophet.
He came and brought a sacrifice to the Lord. Why? Because he was a sinner (like Christ???)
He needed to do so on a regular basis (like Christ???)
He needed to make an atonement for HIS OWN sin (like Christ???)

Whew, nit-picking minute. In contrast to Cain, Abel was obedient (like Christ).

I marvel that you don't marvel about the remarkable agreement between type and antitype, but such is the case with that barren dry and thirsty land of Dispensational literal interpretation. Killjoy to the hilt.

You read Pink, copy Pink, swallow this man's theology. Why not study the Bible instead? Throw away that book! The Bible is much better.

DHK cheap smear shot. I will always offer Pink as an alternative to that barren dry and thirsty land of Dispensational literal interpretation. Accept it, get acquainted with it.

 

[thomas15]

The Question:

You read Pink, copy Pink, swallow this man's theology. Why not study the Bible instead? Throw away that book! The Bible is much better.

The Answer: cut n' paste doesn't require any reading ability or language comprehension skills.

 

[DHK]

Whew, nit-picking minute. In contrast to Cain, Abel was obedient (like Christ).

Abel was a sinner, unlike Christ.
He is listed in Hebrews chapter 11 among the heroes of faith, but Christ isn't. Christ didn't need faith; he didn't need salvation.
Again, Abel needed to bring sacrifices for his own salvation. That is in total contrast to Christ and in no way can be a type of Christ.

I marvel that you don't marvel about the remarkable agreement between type and antitype, but such is the case with that barren dry and thirsty land of Dispensational literal interpretation. Killjoy to the hilt.

Here is your bias; your prejudice. I have showed no evidence that I am a dispensationalist in this thread. I have not declared that I am or am not. The only way that you could know that is by reading other threads. Dispensationalism therefore does not enter into this discussion and has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible using an allegorical method. It is simply a red herring, a stone to cast on your behalf.
It is like me calling you "one who believes in the Gap Theory" (just supposing), and all that believe the Gap Theory believe the Bible must be interpreted allegorically. It is a sweeping generalization that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and only shows your prejudice against another man's theology which has absolutely nothing to do with this subject.

DHK cheap smear shot. I will always offer Pink as an alternative to that barren dry and thirsty land of Dispensational literal interpretation. Accept it, get acquainted with it.

Again--Your prejudicial bias pitted against another Biblical topic that has nothing to do with the topic.
It is called: non sequitor.
Pink interprets things allegorically. That was my point. Use the Bible not Pink. That has nothing to do with your red herring and bias against dispensationalism, just as it has nothing to do with the Gap Theory or a study of angels or many other off topic theological studies. Stay on topic!!

 

[kyredneck]

I'll rephrase:

"I marvel that you don't marvel about the remarkable agreement between type and antitype, but such is the case with that barren dry and thirsty land of literal interpretation. Killjoy to the hilt."

"DHK cheap smear shot. I will always offer Pink as an alternative to that barren dry and thirsty land of literal interpretation. Accept it, get acquainted with it."

 

[saturneptune]

Literal versus Allegorical interpretation of scripture.

The dispy rigidly clings to one (when it suits them) and mocks the other.

That is not true. Dispys can be either Calvinistic or free will. Convenant can be either Calvinistic or free will. You are trying to align Calvin with covenant theology. Instead of quoting Pink, really read the Scripture for a change and think for yourself.

 

[The Archangel]

Are you directing your comments to me personally because you think I don't have an understanding of the God of the Bible or are you just making general comments edification of all?

It was a general statement offered to all for whom the shoe fits.

The Archangel

 

[Bronconagurski]

That is not true. Dispys can be either Calvinistic or free will. Convenant can be either Calvinistic or free will. You are trying to align Calvin with covenant theology. Instead of quoting Pink, really read the Scripture for a change and think for yourself.

I'm Calvinistic and free will and dispy. Just don't believe all the tenets of any of them. I guess you could say I believe somewhat in covenant theology as well. I read some Pink when I studied Genesis and he was ok on some things, but far out there on others. He wasn't for me, but a lot of people like his commentaries.

 

[DHK]

I'll rephrase:

"I marvel that you don't marvel about the remarkable agreement between type and antitype, but such is the case with that barren dry and thirsty land of literal interpretation. Killjoy to the hilt."

"DHK cheap smear shot. I will always offer Pink as an alternative to that barren dry and thirsty land of literal interpretation. Accept it, get acquainted with it."

Brother it is quite amazing to me (and sad) that you seem to be putting Pink on an equal footing if not greater, than the inspired Word of God itself. Pink is a man, a sinner like the rest of us. He is fallible and has made many mistakes in his theology. He isn't one to rely on.

Take the Bible and rely on its inspired pages. Fill your mind with its pages.
Whether you are covenant or dispensational it doesn't matter. That is a red herring and has no bearing on the way that people interpret the Bible.

I'll give you an example. Some of those that use the allegorical method more than any other group are the Charismatics. Read Charismatic Chaos by MacArthur. He has well documented illustrations of different Charismatics and their interpretation of Scripture--totally allegorical, and in direct denial and contradiction of the other parts of the Word of God.

I gave you William Branham as one example. I can give you many more. The allegorical method of interpretation leads to heresy, consistently.

 

[thomas15]

...I'll give you an example. Some of those that use the allegorical method more than any other group are the Charismatics. Read Charismatic Chaos by MacArthur. He has well documented illustrations of different Charismatics and their interpretation of Scripture--totally allegorical, and in direct denial and contradiction of the other parts of the Word of God.

I gave you William Branham as one example. I can give you many more. The allegorical method of interpretation leads to heresy, consistently.

There is a certain sense of irony attached to the reformed dependence on the historical teachings of certain select theologians of days past while they completely miss the historical factors that gave rise to that same theology. Not a good example but an example none the less is where in the book referenced above MacArthur demonstrates how the modern charismatic movement gets it's foundation from the RCC and not as is insisted from the Scriptures.

My point being is that much of reformed covenant theology gets it's foundation from that of which it's pretends rebellion, not from the Scriptures but rather from that same RCC.

 

[DHK]

There is a certain sense of irony attached to the reformed dependence on the historical teachings of certain select theologians of days past while they completely miss the historical factors that gave rise to that same theology. Not a good example but an example none the less is where in the book referenced above MacArthur demonstrates how the modern charismatic movement gets it's foundation from the RCC and not as is insisted from the Scriptures.

My point being is that much of reformed covenant theology gets it's foundation from that of which it's pretends rebellion, not from the Scriptures but rather from that same RCC.

Charismatic Chaos is a very good book. In chapter four MacArthur spends the entire chapter on principles of interpretation or hermeneutics. He stresses how the Bible should be interpreted literally in the light of its historical context, also considering the grammar and some other principles which I can't recall off hand. He does not advocate allegory at all, though he be a Calvinist, and a well known Calvinist.

 

[kyredneck]

How could an unregenerate, totally depraved Cain rule over / master sin by doing what's right without being regenerated?

I don't buy the nonsense God specifically commands things He specifically does not equip us for.

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Mt 5:48

Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee. Jn 5:14

10 And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee?
11 And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more. Jn 8

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. Jas 2:10

God has always demanded perfection through the law.

 

[Van]

Beg to differ with you. Job is the oldest book in the Bible. Is it your contention that Job was unregenerate when God dealt with him ? As were his three friends ?

I provides three separate lines of evidence demonstrating inescapably that no one was regenerated before Christ died on the cross. No need to select this guy or that guy and ask if they were regenerated. If you have a verse that says anyone, Job included, was regenerated, post it.

This interpretation is in itself subject to debate. Are we saved by the washing of regeneration, or are we saved by the blood of Christ ? The word "saved" here bears looking into. Is this the "all by grace, none of man's works, but all OF the Lord" 'saved', or is this the 'saved' state which Peter exhorted the Jews to get themselves into when he cried out to them, "save yourselves from this untoward generation".
Undoubtedly, the washing of regeneration does save, but if the washing of regeneration can save us to heaven and to eternity, what for did Christ go up the cross to that horrible and degrading kind of death when He could simply save us by the washing of regeneration ?

I see lots of silly questions, but nothing that challenges Titus 3:5, which says we are saved by the washing of regeneration. Paul explains it this way, when God places us spiritually in Christ, we undergo the circumcision of Christ where our body of flesh (sin) is removed, then we arise in Christ a new creation, born again by the will of God. This is the washing of regeneration, it occurs once God puts us spiritually in Christ, and we are washed by the precious blood of Christ. No need to run about, waving your arms, and trying to make something so simple a child could understand into a muddle no one can unravel.

Yet in another thread, somebody accuses Calvinists (which I am not) of making a monster out of God. I suppose it was because Calvinists teach the sovereignty of God in election ? Yet when God requires Cain, an offspring of Adam whom He Himself with His own hands created out of the earth, to rule over sin knowing fully well Cain can not, I suppose God was not being monstrous, but simply playful ?

Lots of folks post they are not Calvinists, but they never say which of the five points of the Tulip do they think are false doctrines. So a rose by another name....

You are using lots of buzz words with no meaning. Calvinists teach unconditional election, but 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election. God means what He says, therefore for you to say Cain could not do what God said He could do is not playful or cute, or clever, but is a monstrous denigration of God.

How do you know that ? Paul writes of a man he knows who was taken up to the third heaven who heard unspeakable things. Obviously, he was referring to himself. How do you know that among those speakable (is that a word?) things he heard, the teaching of the washing of regeneration was not one ?

Hebrews 11:39-40 teaches the OT saints had to wait to be made perfect together with the New Covenant Saints. All those saved by being placed in Christ follow Christ in the regeneration. Therefore no one was regenerated (the washing of regeneration is part of regeneration) before Christ arose from the dead.

How do you know that the washing of regeneration has not always been the way God dealt with His elect, and that Paul was not teaching something new but something which he has been privileged to be allowed to learn and pass on?

I have demonstrated this in separate ways, (1) everyone saved is regenerated in Christ, and we all follow Christ in the regeneration, therefore no one was regenerated before Christ arose from the dead, (2) No scripture says Cain was regenerated, therefore he had the capacity to rule over sin in an unregenerate state, the state he was born in.

Please elucidate on this point further.

Cain died before Christ rose, therefore by logical necessity Cain could not have followed Christ in the regeneration before Christ was regenerated.

I don't know about that.

But of course you do, you claim Cain was not able to rule over sin due to the Calvinist doctrine of total spiritual inability. But God's word cannot be broken, i.e. it is true and cannot be said to no mean what it says.

Therefore, God must FIRST quicken, then DEMAND responsibility. How can he demand something of one He clearly knows is incapable of performing the action. Even in our fallen world, we know that is not fair. Here's scripture:

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;​

This passage refers to our salvation in Christ, for we are made alive (quickened) together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5.
No one is every quickened, made alive, regenerated while separated from Christ.

Then give the Scriptures.

Matthew 13:1-26 unregenerate men received the gospel with Joy. John 6, unregenerate men asked what must we do to be saved, Matthew 23:13, unregenerate men were entering heaven before they were blocked.

So, according to your statement and belief, God is toying around with the human race ? He wants mankind saved, but, first He must remove their ability to believe in Him by hardening their hearts ?

Calvinists alway resort to offering up misrepresentations of my views. I said God hardens hearts, i.e. Romans 11, to spread the gospel to the Gentiles. Do you deny the very words of God???? God desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Do you deny the very words of God???? Paul went out of his way to tell us the hardening was partial and temporary such that the Jews could be restored according to God's purpose and plan.

This makes me recall what I watched a few days ago on Discovery Channel. Lioness catches a newborn Wildebeest, just out of the womb and learning to use its legs, not knowing what a predator is, lioness not really hungry so she toys around with the wildebeest by letting her run then pressing down on her with her paws.

More running about, but this does not address that God had to harden hearts to preclude them from believing and being healed. These are the very words of God you are trying to evade.

 

[Van]

That's not how I recall that Scripture. From what I remember, the apostles asked Jesus why He taught the masses in parables, and yet taught them directly, and His answer was : to you it is given, to them it is not. But of course, I may be wrong on this one, and you may be right, since you did not say anything about condemnation, but healing, which are two far different things.

Matthew 13:10 Then the disciples came to him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 He replied, “You have been given the opportunity to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but they have not. 12 For whoever has will be given more, and will have an abundance. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 For this reason I speak to them in parables: Although they see they do not see, and although they hear they do not hear nor do they understand. 14 And concerning them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

‘You will listen carefully yet will never understand,
you will look closely yet will never comprehend.
15 For the heart of this people has become dull;
they are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes,
so that they would not see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

16 “But your eyes are blessed because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

So are you saying that the leopard can sometimes act like a lamb on its own?
that it can actually suppress its wildness and seek peace with its surroundings?

I am saying you are adding to scripture by claiming that our inability to change our spots means something other than our inability to change from being a sinner. This verse does not address our ability to seek God, but other verses, i.e. Matthew 23:13 do show a spotted man can seek God for they were "entering heaven."

I beg to differ again. We do not enter heaven because of good news, which is what the gospel is. The gospel is good FOR TIME, it is the good news of a finished salvation delivered to those who are saved and redeemed, not those who will be, or about to be, or ought to be saved and redeemed.

1) We enter the kingdom of God because God puts us in Christ which transfers us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.

2) Matthew 13:1-26 says unsaved men received the gospel with joy so the gospel comes before salvation.

3) The gospel is the power of God for salvation.

Here's what Scripture says:
Romans 8:7-8
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be .
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Lets look at this passage using the NASB: 7 because the mind set on the flesh is (A)hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are (B)in the flesh cannot please God.

1) This verse says with our minds set on the flesh, i.e. fleshly desires, we are hostile toward God. True. But this verse does not say, what the Calvinists claim, we are unable to set our minds on anything other than the flesh when we are unregenerate. However, Matthew 23:13 demonstrates unregenerate men can set their minds on some spiritual things because they were entering heaven.

2) Yes, when we are sinning, we are not subjecting ourselves to the law of God. But this verse does not say we are unable to rule over sin and set our minds on some spiritual things like heaven.

3) The phrase "in the flesh" is ambiguous and could refer to someone with their mind set on the flesh, or someone who is unregenerate. The best bet is it refers to someone who is unregenerate who has his or her mind set on the flesh. And of course a sinning person cannot please God. But this verse does not say, as Calvinism claims, an unregenerate person is unable to seek God and trust in Christ at any time while unregenerate.

Bottom line, this oft cited passage provides absolute no actual support for Calvinism, all the support must be read into the text.

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned .

Once again, this verse does not say that a natural unregenerate man of flesh cannot receive any of the things of the spirit of God, it only says he does not receive the things of God, leaving it to other verses to tell us whether the idea is all the things or only some of the things. However, if we keep reading to 1 Corinthians 3:3, we will see that the natural man cannot receive the things of spiritual meat, but can receive the things of spiritual milk. Therefore this passage demonstrates once again the exact opposite of Calvinism.

 

[thomas15]

Charismatic Chaos is a very good book. In chapter four MacArthur spends the entire chapter on principles of interpretation or hermeneutics. He stresses how the Bible should be interpreted literally in the light of its historical context, also considering the grammar and some other principles which I can't recall off hand. He does not advocate allegory at all, though he be a Calvinist, and a well known Calvinist.

I couldn't agree with you more DHK, it defies logic really to say as many of our reformed brethern do that in effect because the Bible contains some allegory, we must view (especally) prophecy all or mostly all as allegory.

Much of it goes back to the early Roman Church which once it became the state church of the empire, set itself up as the promised Kingdom. This required an allegorical approach as the church didn't fit a literal interpretation of Scriptures. The reformers, good as they were, did not really challange Rome's interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures and decided the reformed church is actually the kingdom.

As the Bible became more and more accessable to individuals and Bible study bacame more common, some began to question the usefulness of allegorical interpretation in light of an infallable and perfect word of God. It does not necessarly require one to be a dispensationalist to see that the church does not fufill all of the kingdom details. Allegorical interpretation allows some to overlook that fact.