Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by TCGreek, Oct 2, 2007.
Here are a few quotes of this lecture delivered at this year's Shepherd Conference:
Why does Amillenialism fit those who believe in free will?
Macarthur states why, but it seems like you don't agree with him. That is the conclusion he came to, but not all would agree with him.
What promises to Israel have not been fulfilled, and were those unfulfilled promises conditional or unconditional?
It doesn't. Dispensationalism should be set up against Covenant Theology, not amillenialism. CT is a view of the overall system of Bible interpretation, whereas amil is a particular view prophecy and the thousand years of revelation 20.
I don't understand McArthur's rant. Premillenialism doesn't necessarily have a nationla Israel in view. Seems he's equating premil with disp'ism. Yes?
JD, you can check out a three-part transcript version of this lecture:
Part 1: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/90-334
Part 2: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/90-335
Part 3: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/90-336
Macarthur has stirred no ordinary controversy on this matter.
I've read the entire article, and oddly enough, as I write this John Hagee is on TV ranting about how we need to fight for Israel.
Both John's, McArthur and Hagee, are convince they're right.
There are many things in JM's articles I could point out if I had time, but for now just two things.
1. JM said that the OT can not stand on its own under amil. My reply: EXACTLY! The NT completes the scripture, it does not suppliment it.
2. JM said that Israel is the central figure in the Bible, and in history. My reply: CHRIST is the central figure in scripture and history.
The promises were to Abraham and his seed - not seeds, as in many, but seed, as in one, which is Christ. And Christ will build his CHURCH, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He is the head of all things to the CHURCH.
Hebrews 12:22-29 (KJV) 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God is a consuming fire.
Actually, I strongly support MacArthur's stand on Lordship salvation but you don't support that, do you?
I support Lordship salvation with some modifications.
I don't know whether it does or doesn't, but I know of many who believe in free will, who are looking to some future special place for national Israel, and conversely, plenty of those who believe that the will is bound unless and until made free by Christ, who are Amillenial in their eschatology.
Amen brother. :thumbs:
Yup. JMac is coming around. Soon he'll discover that OT saints were saved by a different gospel, not HS indwelt, etc.
It has always been the Reform tradition that was amil/postmil. Surprising since they insist on sola scriptura. Not surprising since they seem also to insist on CT.
But yes, premil does have national Israel in view. We are using it now as a countdown clock of how close we are to the rapture and tribulation.
Just want clarification. Are you saying the OT saints were saved by a different Gospel? Yes or no?
How can you count down to an unknown hour?
Yes, sir -- "gospel of the kingdom." Were you saved by that gospel? Were you saved by the gospel Jesus preached before His rejection by Israel or by the gospel He prophesied after His rejection and in the epistles?
Here's the primary distinction: Christ had not risen. OT saints were just before God but not sanctified by the Holy Spirit indwelling.
The key to the "gospel of the kingdom" is for Messiah KING to establish His physical kingdom on earth among Israel. This is what has always distinguished premil from amil/postmil (as JM notes) -- premil sees the MK literally, amil/postmil allegorically. In that literal kingdom, Israel will be resurrected and sanctified "in Christ." They will at that time come under the same gospel and new covenant.
If you believe, as you seem to, that everyone who is part of national Israel will be saved, because they are part of national Israel, why are you so antagonistic towards the belief that sinners are saved because they are of God's elect?
Is this your belief alone or is this some part of dispensationalism?
1. If you read the transcripts, you'll realize that JMac's Premil is rooted in the sovereign grace of God. I don't think he would ever preach a two-road salvation unless he changes his soteriology as being rooted in the sovereign grace of God.
2. For the most part, but not always. Ol Spurgeon was a covenant premil.
3. Having the headline prophets taught you anything? No one knows the times or the seasons. What countdown are you talking about? Is it John Hagee's Jerusalem Countdown nonsense?
4. I still see some differences in your dispensational premil and JohnMac's dispensational premil.
1. Not at all, RB!
2. So Paul's argument that Abraham is the prototype of all the saved for all ages becomes meaningless (Rom 4:11; Gal 3:6-9, 29-29).