John MacArthur's Teachings

[Bob Moore]

I hope you would agree that one can be Premillenial, Postmillenial, or Amillenial and still be considered orthodox.

This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter ), but A is not defensible as an orthodox position because it denies that Israel still figures in God's plans. The church most certainly has not supplanted Israel, and to hold that it has is far outside the bounds of orthodoxy.

 

[ContraMundum]

This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter ), but A is not defensible as an orthodox position because it denies that Israel still figures in God's plans. The church most certainly has not supplanted Israel, and to hold that it has is far outside the bounds of orthodoxy.

So, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, the best of the Protestant Confessions and the like are not orthodox? Let me get this straight- you're a "Reformed Apologist?". What does "reformed" really mean these days? Is it confined to the Five Points only?

You should read Riddlebarger's book. Israel can feature quite well in an Amillenial theology.

 

[Knight]

This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter ), but A is not defensible as an orthodox position because it denies that Israel still figures in God's plans. The church most certainly has not supplanted Israel, and to hold that it has is far outside the bounds of orthodoxy.

Perhaps this is a better discussion for another thread.

(This one's been hijacked enough already)

 

[ReformedAnglican]

This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter ), but A is not defensible as an orthodox position because it denies that Israel still figures in God's plans. The church most certainly has not supplanted Israel, and to hold that it has is far outside the bounds of orthodoxy.

Well it was certainly held to be orthodox for a very long time, longer than both Pre and Post.

 

[Jon_]

This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter ), but A is not defensible as an orthodox position because it denies that Israel still figures in God's plans. The church most certainly has not supplanted Israel, and to hold that it has is far outside the bounds of orthodoxy.

I am more than a little confused and upset over this comment as well. I can understand one thinking that amillennialism is wrong, but the charge of heterodoxy is one that demands substantial evidence. After all, it was Augustine who definitively crushed chiliasm in the early church and solidified amillennialism as the orthodox understanding of the end times. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Dutch Reformed Churches, and the Westminster Assembly (excepting the Puritans) all viewed amillennialism as the proper view of the end times. I am persuaded that Scripture teaches the same. Moreover, amillennialism does not necessitate the position that Israel no longer figures into God's plan.

I would hear you more on this issue, for it is at the least provocative, and a subject worth inquiry.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ChurchandCrown]

I am persuaded that Scripture teaches the same.

I am persuaded that Postmillennialism is correct but lets face it, the differences between amillennialism and postmillennialism are minute.

 

[Jon_]

I am persuaded that Postmillennialism is correct but lets face it, the differences between amillennialism and postmillennialism are minute.

Certainly not disparate enough to be made a test of orthodoxy, but they are pretty dissimilar in their view of the world just before the Parousia. Amillennialists believe there will be increasing apostasy and chaos in the world, whereas, postmillennialists believe the world will increasingly come to faith and order before Christ's return. During the golden age of imperialism and the growing number of foreign missionaries, it seemed as though the world would soon be converted or at least have the gospel delivered to every man (supposedly a prerequisite of the second coming).

While the in-strides made were indeed wonderful, we now see in the twenty-first century the damage that apostasy and heresy has done to the churches in the mother countries of those missionaries. Europe is now a thorough-going atheistic region, with but sprinklings of faith scattered among the tares. South America is completely enveloped in pagan syncretism, with but a few dim lights of orthodox Christianity. America is quickly becoming Europe, Part 2. Most Asian countries are openly hostile to Christianity, but the gospel still continues to effect faith in those the Holy Spirit graciously regenerates. The Muslim countries are far gone in their hatred of their creator, instead submitting to an idolatrous monstrosity.

There is good reason postmillennialists are called "optimillennialists." One must be an outstandingly opitmistic person to think the world is gradually shifting toward greater faith and order.

Hmm, that ended up sounding more critical than I intended it to. Suffice it to say simply that amillennialism and postmillennialism are relatively similar except for their views concerning pre-end times. Amillennialists see growing disbelief, postmillennialists see growing belief.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ReformedAnglican]

postmillennialists see growing belief.

Even Jonathan Edwards saw a period of apostcy prior to Christ's return.

 

[Jon_]

Even Jonathan Edwards saw a period of apostcy prior to Christ's return.

True enough. If one wishes to be consistent with 2 Thess 2:1-3, some period of deception must come, but on the whole, the postmillennial view is very positive. Whereas the amillennial view sees the church as very distinct from the wickedness of the world, the postmillennial view sees the world as becoming at least superficially Christian, even if not elect. That is, Christianity and Christian morals will be observed and respected if not believed. At least, this is how I understand the postmillennial view. I do not presume to speak for the whole, just my understanding of it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bob Moore]

I am more than a little confused and upset over this comment as well.

Sorry, but you might have suspected that I have what I consider to be good reasons.

I can understand one thinking that amillennialism is wrong, but the charge of heterodoxy is one that demands substantial evidence. After all, it was Augustine who definitively crushed chiliasm in the early church and solidified amillennialism as the orthodox understanding of the end times. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Dutch Reformed Churches, and the Westminster Assembly (excepting the Puritans) all viewed amillennialism as the proper view of the end times. I am persuaded that Scripture teaches the same. Moreover, amillennialism does not necessitate the position that Israel no longer figures into God's plan.

Un huh, and why did they do that since it clashes with Scripture?

The early church expected Christ's return at any moment. Augustine, et al failed to consider that time with God is not the same thing as time with man. Consequently, as time passed and the Lord tarried other interpretations of "behold I come quickly" began to be considered. Augustine gets a lot of the credit (blame) for this view, but his view requires that things that ought to be taken literally because they are written that way be seen as only symbolic. The rapture, tribulation, Armageddon, and so forth are all relegated to mere symbolism and are contained in a millennial age during which Christ is not physically present on earth, but rules through influence on Christian lives which, by the way, is exactly what he is doing today, and we are not in the Millennium.

So, if 1 Thessalonians is to be believed, (not to mention Jesus Himself, with proper understanding of the time reference) amillenialism can not be correct. Therefore, despite the fact that many churches support it, I hold it to be outside the bounds of orthodoxy (heterodox, if you like).

I would hear you more on this issue, for it is at the least provocative, and a subject worth inquiry.

You sure about that?

 

[Jon_]

Un huh, and why did they do that since it clashes with Scripture?

I believe that (the assertion is clashes with Scripture) is precisely the point to be discussed.

The early church expected Christ's return at any moment. Augustine, et al failed to consider that time with God is not the same thing as time with man.

I must respectfully disagree. Augustine was the first theologian to correctly outlay the distinction between time and eternity. He desribes time as the product of a temporal mind, and that sequence is essential to the nature of time. Since God is non-temporal and does not think sequentially, it follows that God is a timeless being, eternity being the antonym of time, a timeless being is an eternal being. He treats this matter especially in City of God, Book XI, Chapters 5 & 6.

Consequently, as time passed and the Lord tarried other interpretations of "behold I come quickly" began to be considered. Augustine gets a lot of the credit (blame) for this view, but his view requires that things that ought to be taken literally because they are written that way be seen as only symbolic. The rapture, tribulation, Armageddon, and so forth are all relegated to mere symbolism and are contained in a millennial age during which Christ is not physically present on earth, but rules through influence on Christian lives which, by the way, is exactly what he is doing today, and we are not in the Millennium.

So, if 1 Thessalonians is to be believed, (not to mention Jesus Himself, with proper understanding of the time reference) amillenialism can not be correct. Therefore, despite the fact that many churches support it, I hold it to be outside the bounds of orthodoxy (heterodox, if you like).

I'm sorry, but I think you'll have to be more direct in your criticism. I do not see how any of this follows or is relevant to amillennialism. Amillennialism makes no symbolism out of the rapture, tribulation, or Armageddon. They are all interpreted to be actual events that have yet come to pass. Amillennialism does not at all deny that these will be real occurances.

Are you sure you're not thinking of preterism? Preterism is the view that all apocalyptic prophecies were fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (It denies a future tribulation, rapture, and second coming.) Your post makes much more sense if that is the view you are criticizing, and I would gladly join you in that endeavor, for it truly is heretical. Other than that, I fail to understand which points of amillennialism you disagree with precisely.

You sure about that?

Indeed, yes.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bob Moore]

Jon,

I will be happy to address your comments. Please allow me a few days for a response that better addresses your concerns.

Regards,

Bob

 

[SwampThing]

I find John MacArthur's study bible to be a refreshing in the endless sea of study bibles....Even though I don't agree with him on everything I do appreciate that he has the guts to stand for what he feels is the proper interpretation of scripture.

It is sad that there are so many study bibles out there that either waffle or skate around hard or controversial issues.

God has used John MacArthur in a mighty way. I am thankfull for his ministry and his teaching.....

Thanks John for all you have done for the Church of Christ in bringing to light God's eternal truths into focus......

 

[Proeliator]

One thing that I find interesting, is that if you look in the back of his study Bible, there is a section on theology where he goes over 4 points, and just leaves out Limited Atonement.

 

[SwampThing]

Limited Atonement is documented in his study notes.....

 

[Bob Moore]

Jon,

I don't recall where I got this set of comments on Amillennialism, but they are not original with me. However, I agree with them. The thing is, Jon, that it does not matter in the least what the majority view is if that view even faintly contradicts Scripture. Nor does it matter to me that many Reformed churches favor Amillennialism. I don't.

"Amillennialism: Although this belief system was present from the early days of Christianity, St. Augustine (354 - 430 CE) was largely responsible for the establishment of amillennialism as formal church belief. It remained the generally accepted system throughout Christianity until the 19th century. Many mainline Protestant denominations -- including many Reformed theologians and some Baptists -- still teach Amillennialism. They believe that the Kingdom of God is present in the world today through the presence of the the heavenly reign of Christ, the Bible, the Holy Spirit and Christianity. Both good and evil will continue in the world until the current Church Age ends suddenly as Christ returns to the sky above the earth. The Rapture follows. The Redeemed are transported to heaven where they will adopt spiritual bodies. The majority of humanity will be sent to Hell at this time for eternal punishment. The world will be abandoned. History is no more. Under this belief system, we are currently living in the Millennium and in the Tribulation period. Events described in The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) and in most of the book of Revelation are seen as occurrences which have already happened, or which are symbolic in nature and not to be taken literally. The Antichrist is looked upon figuratively and not as a real person. Amillennialism has gone out of favor in most conservative Protestant theological circles."

Of course, all are quite free to disagree. Many do.

 

[Jon_]

Jon,

I don't recall where I got this set of comments on Amillennialism, but they are not original with me. However, I agree with them. The thing is, Jon, that it does not matter in the least what the majority view is if that view even faintly contradicts Scripture. Nor does it matter to me that many Reformed churches favor Amillennialism. I don't.

"Amillennialism: Although this belief system was present from the early days of Christianity, St. Augustine (354 - 430 CE) was largely responsible for the establishment of amillennialism as formal church belief. It remained the generally accepted system throughout Christianity until the 19th century. Many mainline Protestant denominations -- including many Reformed theologians and some Baptists -- still teach Amillennialism. They believe that the Kingdom of God is present in the world today through the presence of the the heavenly reign of Christ, the Bible, the Holy Spirit and Christianity. Both good and evil will continue in the world until the current Church Age ends suddenly as Christ returns to the sky above the earth. The Rapture follows. The Redeemed are transported to heaven where they will adopt spiritual bodies. The majority of humanity will be sent to Hell at this time for eternal punishment. The world will be abandoned. History is no more. Under this belief system, we are currently living in the Millennium and in the Tribulation period. Events described in The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) and in most of the book of Revelation are seen as occurrences which have already happened, or which are symbolic in nature and not to be taken literally. The Antichrist is looked upon figuratively and not as a real person. Amillennialism has gone out of favor in most conservative Protestant theological circles."

Of course, all are quite free to disagree. Many do.

This little snippet here is mostly correct. There are just two small correction or clarifications that I want to point out. The first is that many people regard Rome as Antichrist. This is especially pronounced in the second and third generations following the Reformation. While ecumenicism has greatly affected this position, it nevertheless lives on, mostly in amil and postmil circles. The second clarification is that amillennialism does not view the millennium, tribulation, and Antichrist as merely "symbolic." They are taken to be figurative. The millennium is now. Tribulation is now. These do not amount to denials of Scripture. They are not inconsistent with Scripture. View concerning the Antichrist is varied. It's really hard to nail that one down as being strictly specific to amillennialism because there is so much mystery concerning the prophecy. I believe he will be a real person, but that it is possible a "position" or "title" could also be what is meant, and that a specific person will hold that title who will fulfill the prophecy.

But amillennialists do not deny the millennium is already fulfilled or that it is just a symbol of something. What is denied is that it is a literal 1000 year period (just as most postmils do, so I wouldn't understand that a literal 1000 years is what you are advocating). Instead, the millennium has already been ushered in. Satan is bound now. The church is undergoing also undergoing tribulation now. As DrWarfield said, there are differences of opinion concerning a period of apostasy in the postmil camp. It wouldn't surprise me if that were true of amilliennialism too.

In any case, I'm still not quite sure what your main points of objection are. Do you oppose the figurative interpertation of the millennium/tribulation/Antichrist? I'm just trying to understand why you consider amillennialism as unorthodox.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[R.J.S]

You may be interested in http://www.reformedreader.org/amerpost.htm

 

[Bob Moore]

...The second clarification is that amillennialism does not view the millennium, tribulation, and Antichrist as merely "symbolic." They are taken to be figurative....

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I am convinced that the Scripture speaks of these as concrete, real events.

The millennium is now. Tribulation is now.

If the tribulation is 'now', where are the judgments?

These do not amount to denials of Scripture. They are not inconsistent with Scripture.

Perhaps not denials, but certainly inconsistant with a straight forward reading.

View concerning the Antichrist is varied. It's really hard to nail that one down as being strictly specific to amillennialism because there is so much mystery concerning the prophecy. I believe he will be a real person, but that it is possible a "position" or "title" could also be what is meant, and that a specific person will hold that title who will fulfill the prophecy.

A real person, yes, because I do not see how a "position" or "title" can be thrown into the lake of fire, and that is what God says he will do with the antichrist.

But amillennialists do not deny the millennium is already fulfilled or that it is just a symbol of something. What is denied is that it is a literal 1000 year period (just as most postmils do, so I wouldn't understand that a literal 1000 years is what you are advocating).

The Bible describes a 1000 year reign on earth by Jesus Christ. Revelation 20:4 says the saints reign "with Christ" for 1000 years. And since the saints do not reign in heaven that only leaves the earth. We will reign with Him for 10 centuries right here on earth.

Instead, the millennium has already been ushered in. Satan is bound now.

Does the world look like satan is bound? Not to me.

The church is undergoing also undergoing tribulation now. As DrWarfield said, there are differences of opinion concerning a period of apostasy in the postmil camp. It wouldn't surprise me if that were true of amilliennialism too.

The church has undergone tribulation since the beginning, and apostacy is rampant, but that is to be expected on the basis of Matthew 7.

In any case, I'm still not quite sure what your main points of objection are. Do you oppose the figurative interpertation of the millennium/tribulation/Antichrist? I'm just trying to understand why you consider amillennialism as unorthodox.

Yes, I oppose the assignment of what is written as future history to the realm of the figurative. Consider: if the tribulation and antichrist are figurative, is the judgment of God against His enimies also to be taken that way?

In any event, this is not a salvation issue and I will not fall out of fellowship with anyone who disagrees with me about it. But I think that in settling on a position often the peripheral, but very important, consideration of the necessary implications of the position go unstudied.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon[/QUOTE]

 

[SwampThing]

Isn't this thread supposed to be about John MacArthur's teaching instead of end times??

I think this thread got jacked.......