True or false statement?

[Smyth]

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

Misquoting ancient sources seems to be standard for people trying to defend any bad doctrine.

 

[Iconoclast]

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/

John M;

“Now all that leads us to this: if you get Israel right you will get eschatology right. If you don't get Israel right you will never get eschatology right. Never. And you'll migrate from one view to another just depending on the last book you read or the last lecture you heard . . . . If you get eschatology right it's because you get Israel right. You get Israel right when you get the Old Testament covenants and promises right. You get the Old Testament covenants and promises right when you get the interpretation of Scripture right. You get interpretation of Scripture right when you're faithful to a legitimate hermeneutic and God's integrity is upheld. Get your hermeneutics right, you'll get the Old Testament promises right. Get promises right, you'll get Israel right. Get Israel right, you'll get eschatology right. The Bible calls God the God of Israel over 200 times. The God of Israel. There are over 2,000 references to Israel in Scripture, not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16 which is the only two passages that amillennialists go to trying to convince us that that cancels out the other 2,000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers; the Israel of God. Israel always means Israel, never means anything but Israel. Seventy three New Testament uses of Israel always mean Israel.”

Kim R;

While I'll respond to MacArthur's argument about the number of times the Bible speaks of Israel a bit later, at this point let me just say that Dr. MacArthur is absolutely correct about one thing: Get your hermeneutics right and you will get your eschatology right. But here’s precisely where we part ways with Dr. MacArthur and his dispensational presupposition that because national Israel lies at the heart of all biblical eschatology and covenants, the Old Testament promises made to national Israel are the hermeneutical center of Scripture. As an amillennarian, I assign that place to Jesus Christ, who, the New Testament tells me, is the true Israel.

Understanding the difference between the amillennial hermeneutic and the dispensational hermeneutic is the key to understanding the essence of this debate. Every major dispensational theologian from Walvoord to Pentecost to Ryrie to MacArthur himself, insists that God has two distinct redemptive programs–one for national Israel and one for the Gentiles. MacArthur clearly affirms this dispensational presupposition in the quote above.

Reformed amillennarians reject this understanding of God's redemptive purposes. God’s purpose is not to save two distinct peoples (divided by ethnicity), but to save his people (the elect), a multitude which no man can number (Revelation 7:9), and which includes each and every one of those whom God has chosen, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul addresses this very point when discussing God’s redemptive purpose for Gentiles and national Israel. Here, Paul flat-out contradicts the dispensational assertion that God has distinct redemptive purposes for national Israel and for the church. According Paul, God’s purpose in the New Covenant is to remove the ethnic distinctions between Jew and Gentile (between Israel and the church) which had been dividing them. Paul says that Jesus came to tear down the barrier wall which formerly divided the two, in order to make the two peoples into one so as to form Jew and Gentile together into the one living temple of the Lord–the church. In this spiritual temple, Christ is the chief cornerstone, and the foundation is the prophets and apostles.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2;

While dispensationalists will concede that this is God’s purpose for the present age, they say Israel’s distinct role resurfaces again after the Rapture when the Gentile church is removed from the earth. This dual redemptive purpose then carries on throughout the millennial age after Christ comes back. If true, this means that it is Christ’s purpose to make the two peoples one is only temporary. God intends to divide Israel (ethnic Jews) again from the Gentiles after the resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11).

Of course, this makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, such a view forces us to see the future millennial age as something completely distinct from Christ’s redemptive purpose under the New Covenant. On these terms, the as-yet future millennium marks a return to Old Testament types and shadows and ignores the fact that the reality is Christ. This not only means that redemptive history takes a giant U-turn after Christ comes back, amounting to a return to the types and shadows which preceded the coming of the Messiah, but it completely ignores the very thing Christ came to do–make the two peoples one by removing all ethnic divisions which previously divided believers! The progress of redemption takes us from promise (types and shadows) to fulfillment (anti-types), not from promise, to temporary (or transitional) fulfillment, and then finally back to the types and shadows.

This is why a Christ-centered hermeneutic changes everything and why this hermeneutic lies at the heart of the differences between Reformed amillennialism and dispensationalism. As Bob Strimple (the former president of Westminster Seminary California, and now professor emeritus of systematic theology) points out in a lecture he often gives on this very topic, there are a number of reasons why Israel’s role in the Old Testament was preparatory to the coming Christ, and can therefore cannot serve as the hermeneutical center of Scripture. The fact is that Christ comes to fulfill (literally) all of the Old Testament promises, not to temporarily put them aside, only to return to them in a future millennium. Strimple bases his view that Christ is the true Israel on the following biblical arguments:

1). Isaiah’s servant songs have a double referent that has long baffled Jewish commentators. On the one hand, they refer to Israel, God’s chosen one and servant (41:8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 49:3). On the other, they seem also to refer to some individual (42:1-4). These prophesies are interpreted by the New Testament as referring to Christ (Matthew 8:17 and Acts 8:30-35)

2). Matthew sees a double referent in Hosea 11:1, ("Out of Egypt I called my son")

3). Paul identifies Christ, not physical Israel, as Abraham’s seed (Galatians 3:16). Galatians 3:7 and Romans 4:11, 16, moreover, identify the church as Abraham’s offspring.

4). Henceforth, we are in Christ the true Israel: Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 2:28-29, and Philippians 3:3.

5). The Old Covenant is obsolete, having been superseded by the New: Hebrews 8:8-12 identifies the new covenant with Israel (Jeremiah 31:33-34) with the covenant instituted by Christ with the church. Most importantly, Hebrews 8:13 declares the old covenant obsolete and passing away. This makes impossible the dispensational view of Ezekiel 40-48 as a reinstitution of temple sacrifice.

6). The upshot is that the Old Testament did not see how its own prophesies were to be fulfilled - indeed, it could not prior to Christ. The New Testament authors were able to interpret the Old Testament in the light of His coming of the new covenant that He instituted. So should we.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt3;

In his lecture, MacArthur makes the point that since God elects Israel, and since “Israel means Israel,” any other approach to eschatology destroys the perspicuity of the Old Testament. Yes, Dr. MacArthur is right that Israel always means Israel, but that’s not the point.

When the writers of the New Testament see Israel in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ, they now see that the nation of Israel and the Sinaitic covenant which established it, were intended by God to point ahead to the coming of Jesus. That’s what Paul is getting at in Galatians 3:19-25, when he speaks of the law as intended by God to prepare the way for the coming of Christ. This is because the law exposes our sin and like a school-master drives us to Christ.

But this truth was largely hidden in the types and shadows of the Old Testament era in redemptive history because Christ had not yet come and the ultimate purpose of the law could not yet be seen. But this same truth is impossible to escape after Jesus steps out of type and shadow onto the center stage of redemption (Galatians 4:4-5). It Jesus who now tells us the true purpose of the Old Covenant–“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me" (John 5:39). This is not amillennial "spiritualizing" of Scripture, it is the method of biblical interpretation taught us by Jesus and his apostles!

 

[Iconoclast]

Jesus was rejected because the kingdom he came to bring Israel was not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36; and in Romans 14:17 Paul tells us that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”). Israel rejected Jesus because they were seeking a national/political kingdom tied to the land promised to Abraham and to the typological kingship of David. They were not looking for that spiritual kingdom defined in the parables of Matthew 13 which spreads into the whole world (cf. Matthew 13:32). No, they wanted to be a great nation with a king as they had been in the past, and this meant a defeat of Rome.

In other words, the Jews wanted a geo-political kingdom much like that described by the dispensationalists as characteristic of the future millennial age. Blinded by a zeal without knowledge (Romans 10:2), a trust in personal righteousness instead of that provided by God through faith (cf. Philippians 3:3-11) and because of the national embarrassment and harsh realities of Roman occupation, when Jesus didn’t offer or promise the Jews such a kingdom, they rejected him.

In this we see why the Reformed Confessions condemned the proto-dispensationalism of the Reformation era in the harshest of terms. “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. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in 2 Thess., ch. 2, and 2 Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different” (Second Helvetic Confession 11.10).

This condemnation is not a racial and therefore an anti-Semitic issue–“these people are wrong because they are Jews.” Rather it is a hermeneutical matter. Christians have two testaments, not just the Old Covenant. Those who hold to “Jewish dreams” are condemned for the error of allowing the typological kingdom found in the Old Testament to serve as the hermeneutical fulcrum of the New Testament. Such people cannot make sense of Scripture because they do not see Christ as the sum and substance of all biblical Revelation.

 

[Darrell C]

In seminary one thing we learned is that there are different type of theological fields. You think there is only one but this is quite false. I would say that RC is more of a systematic theologian while Mac a exegetical theologian.

So what field do you think RC studies, or has studied...that MacArthur has not? What expertise do you think RC has that MacArthur does not?

The primary point is that those who say MacArthur is not a theologian is a little absurd to me. Particularly when you compare their doctrine.


God bless.

 

[evangelist6589]

So what field do you think RC studies, or has studied...that MacArthur has not? What expertise do you think RC has that MacArthur does not?

The primary point is that those who say MacArthur is not a theologian is a little absurd to me. Particularly when you compare their doctrine.


God bless.

RC has written a systematic theology book while MacArthur has not. He also touches more on systematic theology in his teachings. Mac has studied this, but I think RC knows a little more on the topic.

 

[TCassidy]

I agree concerning the necessity of getting your hermeneutic right. And that is one of the problems I have with any of the strict dispensational systems.

What most dispensationalists fail to realize is that dispensationalism is, itself, a hermeneutic. It is placed over the scriptures and colors the understanding of those scriptures. So, in effect, the conclusion is reached by means of the presupposition, which is nothing more than the conclusion restated. Rather typical circular reasoning. Kind of like KJVOism.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am pre-mil. Not a dispensational pre-mil, but an historic pre-mil. A Chilliast.

I lean toward post-trib (but in a less than traditional sense) but will not break fellowship with a pre-trib or a mid-trib as I believe both have scriptural support depending on certain presuppositions.

I believe the church was formed from spiritual Israel, and many (if not most) of the promises made to spiritual Israel in the OT are being or will be fulfilled in the church.

But I also believe there are yet promises made to Israel that are yet to be fulfilled and when they are they will bless Israel, both nationally and spiritually (probably due to the fact that, at that time, all of National Israel will also be Spiritual Israel, for all of Israel will be saved).

We see an indication of this in the Heavenly City. The foundation stones will each include the name of one of the 12 Apostles, while the great wall will have 12 gates, and over each gate will be the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel. In order to get to the Heavenly City it will be necessary to pass through one of the 12 tribes of Israel.

 

[Darrell C]

RC has written a systematic theology book while MacArthur has not. He also touches more on systematic theology in his teachings.

First you say that MacArthur is not a Theologian, now you say MacArthur is a lesser Theologian because he hasn't written a book on Systematic Theology?

I would suggest to you that Systematic Theology is the very reason why we have so many confused people in regards to Theology.

My definition of a Theologian is simply one...who knows what he is talking about.

And R.C. has some pretty funky teachings, lol.

Mac has studied this, but I think RC knows a little more on the topic.

So you think knowledge of Systematic Theology, or creating Systematic Theology...makes one more knowledgeable?

Well, you need to moderate your thread, my friend, and set these fellows straight. Let them know that Dispensationalism is a Systematic Theology and therefore must be correct, because only Theologians create them, lol. You might want to remind what the OP is again while your at it.

And that's it for me in this one.


God bless.

 

[evangelist6589]

First you say that MacArthur is not a Theologian, now you say MacArthur is a lesser Theologian because he hasn't written a book on Systematic Theology?

I would suggest to you that Systematic Theology is the very reason why we have so many confused people in regards to Theology.

My definition of a Theologian is simply one...who knows what he is talking about.

And R.C. has some pretty funky teachings, lol.




So you think knowledge of Systematic Theology, or creating Systematic Theology...makes one more knowledgeable?

Well, you need to moderate your thread, my friend, and set these fellows straight. Let them know that Dispensationalism is a Systematic Theology and therefore must be correct, because only Theologians create them, lol. You might want to remind what the OP is again while your at it.

And that's it for me in this one.


God bless.

Darrell you have a real problem. I am not saying Mac is not a theologian he is, but not to the same degree as RC at least in systematic theology.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell you have a real problem. I am not saying Mac is not a theologian

The problem is not mine, because MacArthur's Theology and Soteriology and Eschatology...is more accurate than that of RC. That you feel RC is of a higher standard of Theologian, great, I am happy for you. I love RC, and enjoy listening to him, but, that doesn't mean I don't think he could stand to improve his Theology, and I believe if he would just listen to his friend...that might happen.

Darrell you have a real problem. I am not saying Mac is not a theologian

Not now, anyway:

Darrell C said: ↑

Well, when you have people that say "John MacArthur is not really a Theologian," what do you expect?

And to be clear, I am not saying Hank said that.


God bless.

He is not. But RC Sproul is.

I am glad you have magnanimously begun to agree that John is a Theologian, very big of you. When you can understand John's superiority as a Theologian based on the Theology itself, as opposed to the works of the individuals in view, then you will begin to make a different public statement in regards to who is a Theologian or not.

The truth is, E...you are a theologian. You have a knowledge of God and you publicly declare that knowledge. It is your responsibility, standing in the role of teacher (which is an apt description of anyone engaged in Evangelism)...to be expert in that which you are teaching.

There is a dire warning given to those who would be teachers, and not everyone considers that. I want you to consider that.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I am not saying Mac is not a theologian he is, but not to the same degree as RC at least in systematic theology.

If more people spent less time in learning their Systems of Theology, and more time in the source of Theology, there would be a more united Body of Christ today.

But because many have thrown off our Teacher for teachers...there is much confusion, controversy, and hostility in the Body of Christ. It is sad that Paul could address this issue in the First Century...and it is still an issue in this day. Makes me wonder how the Corinthians responded to Paul's rebuke.

Of course, he did have to write to them more than once...


God bless.

 

[pilgrim_99]

RC has written a systematic theology book while MacArthur has not. He also touches more on systematic theology in his teachings. Mac has studied this, but I think RC knows a little more on the topic.

What is the name of this systematic theology text by Sproul to which you refer?

 

[evangelist6589]

What is the name of this systematic theology text by Sproul to which you refer?

Its a entry level systematic theology called "Everyone is a Theologian." No its not academic level or to be used in the seminary. Probably more High School level.

 

[evangelist6589]

If more people spent less time in learning their Systems of Theology, and more time in the source of Theology, there would be a more united Body of Christ today.

But because many have thrown off our Teacher for teachers...there is much confusion, controversy, and hostility in the Body of Christ. It is sad that Paul could address this issue in the First Century...and it is still an issue in this day. Makes me wonder how the Corinthians responded to Paul's rebuke.

Of course, he did have to write to them more than once...


God bless.

You need to learn to understand the differences between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology.

 

[pilgrim_99]

Its a entry level systematic theology called "Everyone is a Theologian." No its not academic level or to be used in the seminary. Probably more High School level.

I'm sorry, I'm not knocking the book, but it is ridiculous to refer to that as a ST in any sense. (Sproul does however have a lengthy video series on systematic theology.) MacArthur (and some associates, I think) are set to release a systematic theology textbook within the next year.

Now, a valid comparison would be Sproul's knowledge of philosophy and related fields. MacArthur has never pretended to be anything but a New Testament expositor. Regardless, none of this really has anything to do with the question at hand. There are amils and postmils who are expositors and premils and pretribbers who are systematic theologians.

 

[evangelist6589]

I'm sorry, I'm not knocking the book, but it is ridiculous to refer to that as a ST in any sense. (Sproul does however have a lengthy video series on systematic theology.) MacArthur (and some associates, I think) are set to release a systematic theology textbook within the next year.

Now, a valid comparison would be Sproul's knowledge of philosophy and related fields. MacArthur has never pretended to be anything but a New Testament expositor. Regardless, none of this really has anything to do with the question at hand. There are amils and postmils who are expositors and premils and pretribbers who are systematic theologians.

You need to do more research. The book is subtitled "an introduction to systematic theology." Stop making judgments when you do not even have the book. As I said its an introduction, and I have systematic theologies and sometimes refer to this book because the topics are brief and to the point (unlike a big volume systematic theology).

 

[Darrell C]

You need to learn to understand the differences between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology.

I like to think I do, lol.

Now, is John MacArthur a Theologian or not?


God bless.

 

[Smyth]

And, of course, we all believe in the imminent return of Christ.

The doctrine of immanency (frequently, the doctrine of the imminent Rapture is taught) makes God a liar. (Don't you agree, anything that makes God a liar is demonic?)

According to popular Rapture doctrine, there is going to be a Rapture on a specific, even if unknown, date. Every generation that has passed before that date, but that was deliberately given the impression that the Rapture could be within their lives, has been lied to. How have they not been lied to? The were led to believe something that wasn't true.

In actuality, the Bible nowhere teaches the lie of false immanency. Jesus didn't teach his return was immanent (not until the Abomination that Causes Desolation, in which case his return would really be immanent). The Bible does't each a pretribulation rapture, let alone an immanent pretribulation rapture. Jesus' first coming was identified down to the year by Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy. No BC student of the OT would have thought Christ's coming was immanent, until it honestly was immanent.

 

[evangelist6589]

I like to think I do, lol.

Now, is John MacArthur a Theologian or not?


God bless.

In a sense yes but he is more of a NT expositor.