What is your Millennial Position?

[Pilgrim]

As I understand it, MacArthur's basic point relates to unconditional election, with the argument being that if what he sees as the unconditional promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants can be annulled then so can New Covenant promises.

The idea that there will be a restoration of national Israel (both spiritually and to the land) doesn't necessitate pretribulationism or dispensationalism. (It may not even necessitate premillennialism at all. I think some postmils have believed that or something similar, although it's rarer to come across postmils who believe anything like that today. I think Erroll Hulse may be a contemporary example of a postmil who believes something along those lines.) A lot of older covenant premils like Spurgeon, Bonar and Ryle believed that.

This is all covered by traditional postmillennialism. The Israel of God (Gal 6:16) in the New Covenant is expanded to include both believing Jews and Gentiles (professing Jews and Gentiles and their children in its administration).

The geographical scope of God's Kingdom is also expanded from the Land of Israel at its widest to include not only the Land of Israel but also the whole Earth (e.g. Ps 72).

The Israel of God is to take possession of the Earth - including the Land of Israel-Palestine by the Holy War of evangelisation. At some point "Israel after the flesh" will be reingrafted into the Israel of God.

Richard,

This is what I'm increasingly coming to understand, although it is certainly a minority view, especially in the USA. But so is the older historic Premillennialism (as opposed to the Ladd variety) that I've noted here and in other threads. I'm premil based on my study so far and admit that I haven't made an in-depth study of traditional postmillennialism. What books would you recommend I start with in studying this view?

If I were to change, traditional postmillennialism of the type that you've advocated here in your many posts appears to me to be the most viable alternative. As I see it, Christ's Kingdom will have dominion over the whole Earth in space and time. The question is whether it will be premil or postmil. I just can't see it being an entirely heavenly, spiritual thing as has been asserted by some of the amils here and of my acquaintence elsewhere.

 

[Peairtach]

Well Hodge's Systematic Theology is more trad postmil on eschatology.

There is Lorraine Boettner's The Millennium which is an interesting survey from a postmil point of view. I would read this first.

Erroll Hulse's The Restoration of Israel another interesting survey.

David Brown's Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?. Nineteenth century postmil.

Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope

John Jefferson Davis Christ's Victorious Kingdom: Postmillennialism Reconsidered

The amil "argument from suffering" - which seems to be one of their stronger suits - is dealt with in Kenneth L.Gentry's edited symposium Thine is the Kingdom


I tend to look at the eschatalogical question as at a basic level "a process of elimination". For me premil goes against certain basic and clear doctrines from the Gospels and Epistles, like the glorification and superexaltation of Christ (Philippians 2:9) along with others.

This is what I'm increasingly coming to understand, although it is certainly a minority view, especially in the USA.

This may be partly an over-reaction by amils and some postmils to Dispensational obsession with Israel, the Jews and a naive and unbiblical and unbalanced philosemitism on the part of Dispensationalists.

The Apostle tells us that although the Jews are beloved because of the fathers, for the most part - apart from converted Jews - they are enemies of the Gospel.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Have either of you read Cornelius P. Venema's book?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Pre Mil. Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist

I love Macarthur as much as anyone, but in this area he is a dispensationalist through and through.

Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.

There is a significant difference between covenant theology which understands different administrations of the covenant of grace and Dispensationalism (capital 'D')

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.

That's a pickle isn't it.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.

Please tell me humor is involved in this statement.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist

But then again, animal sacrifices will resume according to dispensationalists.

 

[Manuel]

Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.

That is a very confusing statement, what does it mean?

 

[jayce475]

Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.

That is a very confusing statement, what does it mean?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

That is a very confusing statement, what does it mean?

Not to put words in David's mouth, but I am assuming that he referring to the discontinuity that exists between the present age and the previous age. I think that all Christians recognize this and this hardly constitutes dispensationalism.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.

That is a very confusing statement, what does it mean?

It just means that everyone who has the biblical record and is not making animal sacrifices, testify by their actions that they believe that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time. That is dispensational.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

It just means that everyone who has the biblical record and is not making animal sacrifices, testify by their actions that they believe that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time. That is dispensational.

If only that were true. Unfortuantely, dispensationalism entails much much more than simply recognizing that God deals differently with people today than he used to. At its core, dispensationalism is the unbiblical separation of Israel and the church into two distinct entities with vastly different destinies.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

It just means that everyone who has the biblical record and is not making animal sacrifices, testify by their actions that they believe that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time. That is dispensational.

If only that were true. Unfortuantely, dispensationalism entails much much more than simply recognizing that God deals differently with people today than he used to. At its core, dispensationalism is the unbiblical separation of Israel and the church into two distinct entities with vastly different destinies.

Just pointing out an area everyone has in common with dispensationalists.

 

[Notthemama1984]

It just means that everyone who has the biblical record and is not making animal sacrifices, testify by their actions that they believe that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time. That is dispensational.

If only that were true. Unfortuantely, dispensationalism entails much much more than simply recognizing that God deals differently with people today than he used to. At its core, dispensationalism is the unbiblical separation of Israel and the church into two distinct entities with vastly different destinies.

Just pointing out an area everyone has in common with dispensationalists.

Not really.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Just pointing out an area everyone has in common with dispensationalists

Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all believe that Christ is the Son of God, however I would not want to be associated with any of them.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Just pointing out an area everyone has in common with dispensationalists

Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all believe that Christ is the Son of God, however I would not want to be associated with any of them.

Those are all heretics. Dispensationalists are christian bretheren, not heretics.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Those are all heretics. Dispensationalists are christian bretheren, not heretics

I am not the arbiter of all things heretical, so I will reserve judgment on that, but my point is that all "Christians" have some things in common. Just because some aspects of a particular doctrine are correct does not mean that the doctrine as a whole is correct.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Those are all heretics. Dispensationalists are christian bretheren, not heretics

I am not the arbiter of all things heretical, so I will reserve judgment on that, but my point is that all "Christians" have some things in common. Just because some aspects of a particular doctrine are correct does not mean that the doctrine as a whole is correct.

Indeed. However, it is true that we all hold that in common. God has dealt with different people differently at different times.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Indeed. However, it is true that we all hold that in common. God has dealt with different people differently at different times

I think we all agree on that point. I think the confusion stems from trying to discern your motivation for pointing this out. Are you trying to espouse dispensationalism? Because as I am sure you are aware, that is technically a violation of the LBCF.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

That may be true DD but according to the dipsensationalism that many hold to, Salvation by grace through faith was not always the mode of salvation. For instance I do know that Old Despensatinalism that was taught to me said in the Millennium that salvation was going to be by obeying the Law again. Matthew chapter 5 was not meant for the gentiles. Only the books of the New Testament that addressed the gentiles were relevant for us gentiles. In the Bible's theology salvation is always by grace through faith from the time of the fall till the end. Salvation has always been about about the person and work of Christ as a mediator. Yes, there are periods where God put forth types to point to the antitype, but it has always been about Christ. The Covenants after the fall were always a revelation of Christ and grace. In the dispensationalism I was taught that wasn't true. Even though I disagreed with it from the beginning, I would listen to and read the guys who promoted such theology. I even road the Bible Bus of J. Vernon McGee's 5 year trip. I loved listening to that old dispensationalist Presbyterian. His voice was so cool to me and his desire for the salvation of the Church was very evident. Salvation in dispensationalism is not the same for Isreal and the Gentile Church. And that is very unbiblical.

Dispensationalist Beliefs – Salvation by William E. Cox

Dispensationalist Beliefs

DD, you really need to spend some time getting to know about this. Please take some time to learn about this.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Indeed. However, it is true that we all hold that in common. God has dealt with different people differently at different times

I think we all agree on that point. I think the confusion stems from trying to discern your motivation for pointing this out. Are you trying to espouse dispensationalism? Because as I am sure you are aware, that is technically a violation of the LBCF.

I just thought it was funny. Also technically Macarthurian dispensationalism doesn't contradict the LBCF. It falls nicely under it's umbrella because the LBCF nowhere ways the church IS Israel. The Church is grafted into Israel as the scripture says.

The only exception I take to the LBCF is the observance of sabbath. I am not sabbatarian. I believe we are free in Christ from laws like that. Other than that I'm good to go with it. So, I claim it. At any rate I can pick and choose my confession based on scripture, but I cannot pick and choose scripture. Scripture trumps all confessions in my view.

---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

That may be true DD but according to the dipsensationalism that many hold to, Salvation by grace through faith was not always the mode of salvation. For instance I do know that Old Despensatinalism that was taught to me said in the Millennium that salvation was going to be by obeying the Law again.

Macarthur and Ryrie both flatly contradict that. I don't know about any one else. They both claim that salvation has always been by grace through faith and that in the millennium the law will be obeyed fully by fully sanctified people because the law is good. It is not their salvation it is their way of life. Also Christ will be the high priest presiding over sacrifices that are memorial in nature. Such as today we have the Lord's Supper that looks back at his sacrifice as a symbolic memorial. In the millennium we will have sacrifices in Ezekiel's Temple that look back to Christ's sacrifice as well. It is a celebration of Christ, by Christ, for Christ, to the glory of the Father.

Salvation in dispensationalism is not the same for Isreal and the Gentile Church. And that is very unbiblical.

From what macarthur and ryrie say all the Jews who deny Christ will go to hell and only those who accept him will be saved. In the end Israel will recognize him and morn as Zechariah says. They will be sorrowful for denying him for thousands of years. But they will be saved. So they have made God so angry that many generations of them will be in hell, but the final generation will look to Christ to be saved. All Jews who accept Christ will be saved all who reject him will perish.

DD, you really need to spend some time getting to know about this. Please take some time to learn about this.

I'm no expert but I have read a lot on it. Also I have a cousin who is a PHD SBC dispensationalist pastor and professor who is interesting to talk to. Also, I don't realy know how much I know about this. I have a generally low opinion of myself so many times I say I don't know something and it turns out I know a lot more than I thought I did. I just don't know how to measure how much is a lot.

 

[torstar]

I thought I signed up for a Reformed board for which all members promised they were subscribers to an approved Confession, no matter how tenuously it appears that are subscribed.

Why am I being exposed to views of Ryrie and Dispensationalism?

One of the main reasons I came to this board was to get away from this.

I am sure there are plenty of wonderful boards out there that will bicker about Mac and Ryrie and Dispensationalism...

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I thought I signed up for a Reformed board for which all members promised they were subscribers to an approved Confession, no matter how tenuously it appears that are subscribed.

Why am I being exposed to views of Ryrie and Dispensationalism?

One of the main reasons I came to this board was to get away from this.

I am sure there are plenty of wonderful boards out there that will bicker about Mac and Ryrie and Dispensationalism...

Well, it's a thread on Premillenialism and dispensationalism came up and I was just clarifying their positions because I have read them.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I just thought it was funny. Also technically Macarthurian dispensationalism doesn't contradict the LBCF. It falls nicely under it's umbrella because the LBCF nowhere ways the church IS Israel. The Church is grafted into Israel as the scripture says.

I have read the book I am going to recommend to you but I don't have a copy to quote from right now. DD you should get this and read this. I don't believe they are compatible.
MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto - Reformed Baptist Academic Press

 

[Peairtach]

Have either of you read Cornelius P. Venema's book?

I haven't.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I just thought it was funny. Also technically Macarthurian dispensationalism doesn't contradict the LBCF. It falls nicely under it's umbrella because the LBCF nowhere ways the church IS Israel. The Church is grafted into Israel as the scripture says.

I have read the book I am going to recommend to you but I don't have a copy to quote from right now. DD you should get this and read this. I don't believe they are compatible.
MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto - Reformed Baptist Academic Press

Thanks. Looks interesting. That Macarthur sermon at the Shepherds conference was pretty convincing I thought.

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------

[/COLOR]

Have either of you read Cornelius P. Venema's book?

I haven't.

Me either.

 

[Pilgrim]

Please Take Another Look--More Study Needed

David,

MacArthur does not affirm the bicovenantal teaching of the LBCF i.e. the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace.

Compare this from the LBCF:

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

with the following from the statement of faith to which MacArthur subscribes:

We teach that the formation of the church, the Body of Christ,
began on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21, 38-47) and will be
completed at the coming of Christ for His own at the rapture
(1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
We teach that the church is thus a unique spiritual organism
designed by Christ, made up of all born-again believers in this present
age (Ephesians 2:11-3:6). The church is distinct from Israel
(1 Corinthians 10:32), a mystery not revealed until this age
(Ephesians 3:1-6; 5:32).

These two statements are plainly incompatible. The 2nd LBCF does not teach that the church began at Pentecost the way all dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians do. The 2nd LBCF teaches one covenant of grace with two administrations (i.e. beginning in Genesis, not Pentecost) a teaching that is rejected by all dispensationalists (including MacArthur) and New Covenant Theologians. A pre-trib rapture is also incompatible with all historic Baptist confessions, including the 1689.

See also this recent post by Phil Johnson, MacArthur's editor and I think it's fair to say, right hand man, in which he states that he does not affirm covenant theology. He does however affirm the threefold division of the law, something that the overwheming majority of dispensationalist have rejected (including some at MacArthur's very own Masters Seminary) so that may account for some of the confusion here. Phil (and presumably MacArthur, although after quickly perusing it I didn't find it reflected in Grace Church's doctrinal statement) also affirms the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, a teaching that almost all dispensationalists (at least in my experience) have rejected. These are examples of MacArthur's "leaky dispensationalism." But it is still dispensationalism nonetheless.

Most evangelicals, including even Calvinistic Southern Baptists, have little or no knowledge or understanding of covenant theology, even the covenant theology affirmed by the founders of the Southern Baptist convention. Most non-dispensational Calvinistic Southern Baptists are closer to NCT than anything else, even if they're not that familiar with the specifics of NCT teaching. (This is a teaching that is almost always amil, but which rejects the bicovenantalism of the 1689 and its teaching on the law.) This would include those who identify strongly with Piper, Schreiner and most if not all of the contributors to the Believer's Baptism book edited by Schreiner and Wright. For a covenantal Baptist perspective, see Fred Malone's book on baptism and the Coxe/Owen volume Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ.

I urge you to take Randy's (puritancovenanter's) advice and take some time to study covenant theology much more thoroughly rather than making dogmatic statements the way you have done today that reflect a clear misunderstanding of it. (Historic Premillennialism is not incompatible with covenant theology but dispensationalism is.) If after studying the issue you then continue to affirm MacArthur's dispensationalism then no one here will accuse you of adhering to soul destroying heresy. But that teaching is clearly incompatible with the 1689 and represents a much more radical departure from it than those who cannot fully affirm its teaching on the 4th Commandment but who otherwise affirm its covenantalism.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

David,

MacArthur does not affirm the bicovenantal teaching of the LBCF i.e. the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace.

Compare this from the LBCF:

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

With the following from the statement of faith to which MacArthur subscribes:

We teach that the formation of the church, the Body of Christ,
began on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21, 38-47) and will be
completed at the coming of Christ for His own at the rapture
(1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
We teach that the church is thus a unique spiritual organism
designed by Christ, made up of all born-again believers in this present
age (Ephesians 2:11-3:6). The church is distinct from Israel
(1 Corinthians 10:32), a mystery not revealed until this age
(Ephesians 3:1-6; 5:32).

These two statements are plainly incompatible. The LBCF does not teach that the church began at Pentecost the way all dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians do.

See also this recent post by Phil Johnson, MacArthur's editor and I think it's fair to say, right hand man, in which he states that he does not affirm covenant theology. He does however affirm the threefold division of the law, something that the overwheming majority of dispensationalist have rejected (including some at MacArthur's very own Masters Seminary) so that may account for some of the confusion here.

Most evangelicals, including even Southern Baptist Calvinists, have little or no knowledge or understanding of covenant theology, even the covenant theology affirmed by the founders of the Southern Baptist convention.

I don't see how they are incompatible at all really. The church is grafted onto Israel but is not Israel. One enters into the Church upon being saved. Eventually Israel will be saved as well. And then the Church and Israel will be as one and all the prohecies wil be fulfilled.

One cannot be in teh church without being saved and all who are saved are in the church however one can be a part of Israel without being saved. HOwever true Israel is all of the saved and that is when Israel "the biological seed of Abraham" will be redeemed. When they accept Christ. Gid is still faithful to them. And will uphold his promises to Abraham.

That is their idea as I understand it

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I just thought it was funny. Also technically Macarthurian dispensationalism doesn't contradict the LBCF. It falls nicely under it's umbrella because the LBCF nowhere ways the church IS Israel. The Church is grafted into Israel as the scripture says.

I have read the book I am going to recommend to you but I don't have a copy to quote from right now. DD you should get this and read this. I don't believe they are compatible.
MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto - Reformed Baptist Academic Press

Thanks. Looks interesting. That Macarthur sermon at the Shepherds conference was pretty convincing I thought.

You will see where JM made a lot of blunders in his understanding by reading Dr. Waldron's book.

Have either of you read Cornelius P. Venema's book?

I haven't.

Me either.

I believe it is one of the best books written on the subject. It is up to date and discusses all the things you guys have mentioned in this thread if I remember correctly.

See this review.... Banner of Truth Trust General Articles