Why Calvinism Necessitates Premillennialism
March 7th, 2007
In the opening session of the Shepherds’ Conference, John MacArthur challenged the men to take eschatology seriously, noting that the end of the story matters. He further asserted that, of all people, Calvinists should be the most enthusiastic about premillennialism — because they take the doctrine of election and the biblical covenants so seriously. If God’s calling and covenants are irrevocable, then Israel necessarily has a future based on the Old Testament promises. To read the details of John’s message, please see Tim Challies’ report.
In his message, MacArthur addressed (and answered negatively) the following four questions:
1. Were the writers of the Old Testament amillennialists? No
2. Were the Jews of Jesus time amillennialists? No
3. Was Jesus an amillennialist? No (cf. Acts 1:3, 6-7)
4. Were the apostles amillennialists? No (cf. Acts 3:19-21, 25; 15:15-17; Rom. 3:3-4; 9:6-8, 13; 11:26-29)
5. Were the earliest church fathers amillennialists? No (see below)
Eusebius (c. 275–339) regarding Papias (c. 60–c. 135): Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. . . . Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.
Justin Martyr (c. 100–165): But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
Lactantius (c. 240–c. 320): Therefore peace being made, and every evil suppressed, that righteous King and Conqueror will institute a great judgment on the earth respecting the living and the dead, and will deliver all the nations into subjection to the righteous who are alive, and will raise the righteous dead to eternal life, and will Himself reign with them on the earth, and will build the holy city, and this kingdom of the righteous shall be for a thousand years.
Philip Schaff (1819–1893): The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgement. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius….
For those who were not able to attend the conference, this is definitely an MP3 you will want to get (even if you don’t consider yourself a premillennialist). The MP3s should be available online at http://www.shepherdsconference.org/ in a few days.
John is one pre-mil preacher that I take seriously. I can say that for sure.
My one question is that i don’t see where the Bible shows that the Lord will return two times. i just don’t see the “Rapture”. For instance, when Paul writes to the Thessalonians, I be;lieve he is speaking of the one return of Christ in his 1st letter, and then in his 2nd letter as well. i don’t think Paul is teaching two different returns here.
I also agree that eschatology is very important to study, and it does shape our hearts when we study about the last trumpet sounding. Whether it’s pre-mil, a-mil, or post-mil, for they are all orthodox.
I do, however, have such a difficult time with “Left Behind” theology.
[…] As long as we’re on the topic, what are your thoughts on this article by John MacArthur? (Tim Challies and Erik Raymond, two bloggers definitely worth reading, have already discussed it here and here) His first message at this year’s Shepherds Conference was why any self-respecting Calvinist should be premillenial. (Gray and Craig- Stop laughing.) I’m still thinking through what MacArthur is saying, I guess I just don’t see an irrefutable case for it in scripture and the amillenial view jives much better with the way I approach Scripture as a whole. That said, I feel really arrogant being a 19-year-old kid disagreeing with MacArthur and John Piper. (Although if I were pre-mill I’d feel arrogant for being a 19-year-old kid disagreeing with Augustine and pretty much every Reformer and Puritan, as well as contemporay amill guys like Ligon Duncan and C.J. Mahaney) […]
@ Donsands
How do you take 1 Thess and 2 Thess?
I take it like this:
1 Thess:
a) A day is coming as a surprise - It comes “like a thief in the night” 5:2
b) What is this day? - Ch 4:16-17 explains dead rise first than we are “caught up together w/ Him in the clouds.” on that day.
c) What are the unbelievers doing on this day? 5:3 “They are saying ‘Peace and safety!’ than destruction will come upon them suddenly” you know like a thief in the not.
d) Paul’s two fold assurance
1) 4:14 - Jesus will bring the dead w/ him (this was a major concern for the Thess.)
2) 5:9-10 “For God did not destine us for wrath… whether we are dead or asleep” Ppl dead and ppl alive aren’t destined for wrath.
2 Thess 2
A) v1 “Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,” –> Reference to the gathering the dead first, than ones who are alive, and in the clouds of 1 Thess
B) v2 “that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. ”
Paul is saying, don’t worry about missing the gathering in verse 1 (ie the Rapture) and that now your current persecution is the day of the Lord (ie the tribulation)
C) verses 3-12 is an explanation of what happens in the real tribulation and that what they are facing is nothing like it b/c the man of lawlessness is not in power yet, etc.
D) v8 “Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;”
I used to get tripped up here and thought this coming was the coming and gathering of v1, but it’s not. This talks about the 2nd coming at the end of the tribulation.
-John
edit: Ppl who are dead and ppl who are alive IN CHRIST aren’t destined for wrath. But unbelievers will be.
Interesting to say the least. I just hope the message was given in love. I have already been reading in other parts of the blogosphere the disgust with the message.
I can’t wait to actually hear the message and just hope that John preached with passion but also with gentleness.
Well I was there today, and Pastor John did deliver his message in love and with the proper spirit of debate. Having said that, he made a very compelling argument that speaks against the accuracy of a-mil viewpoint. There are many, many bright minds who hold to the a-mil viewpoint, but I honestly don’t understand why they don’t see the pre-mil doctrine that is so obvious in the scripture (if you implement a tight hermeneutical approach).
I loved the fact that Pastor John threw down the gauntlet, knowing that there were many a-mil people in the audience.
John,
Real quick answer: I truly don’t believe Paul was thinking two returns of his Lord. But one.
I will have a more detailed answer tomorrow.
Glad to see someone taking a stand for premillenialism. I think it’s an important topic and I look forward to listening to the message about it.
Premillennialism just isn’t supported by Scripture at all. A good book on this subject is “Dispensationalism Rightly Dividing the People of God?” by Keith A. Mathison. One actually has to believe completely in the dispensational doctrine of the church…if not then the foundation of the premillennialism is weak at best. Romans 9 and other Scripture is proof that the dispensational doctrine is not correct. People came up with the idea of the rapture for two reasons: to support dispensationalism, and the most common, to escape the last half of the tribulation. I think many people put their hope so much in the rapture that they have to come up with Scripture to support the rapture doctrine. Our hope should be in God, Who BTW, tells us in Revelations that He will keep His wrath(not persecution) from us in the end times but not by coming once for us during the rapture and then again for His real second coming as if there are really three comings of Christ…we don’t need a rapture.
Sarah,
With all due respect, I don’t believe that one is required to believe in the Rapture to be a premillenialist. As I understand pre-millenialism, the unifying belief is that Jesus will return prior to the millenium. This stands in contrast with post-millenialism which states that Jesus will return after the millenium is inaugurated. Then there is amillenialism which denies a literal physical millenial kingdom. The Scriptural support for premillenialism is not automatically the same as support for the Rapture.
@ Sarah
Oh - in Romans 9? That’s one of my fav. chapters! Please enlighten me to what you are talking about?
Also, how do you read 1 Thess? I mean it straight up chronological order of “some” event - we’ll just call the “snatch up”-
1) the dead first
2) Than ppl alive
3) To Himself in the clouds.
and 1 Corin 15 same thing
51Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
To say that there are some prbs and weak areas in preTRIB - premill. is way different than not supported AT ALL.
oh yea one more thing
1 Theess 4:16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Puts the 2 chapters w/ the nearly the same outline produces
1) Trumpet
2) Dead first
3) Alive
4?) Gathered up into the clouds
4?) Changed (both could be at the same time w/ the dead getting the appropriate changes before the ones alive).
Donsands said:
My one question is that i don’t see where the Bible shows that the Lord will return two times. i just don’t see the “Rapture”. For instance, when Paul writes to the Thessalonians, I be;lieve he is speaking of the one return of Christ in his 1st letter, and then in his 2nd letter as well. i don’t think Paul is teaching two different returns here.
Don, you could be a post-tribber, like George Ladd, and an premillenialist (i.e. this view maintains a “one time return”). Actually I follow the Bible at this point, and I’m an pre-tribber
.
Sara,
as an amiller you hold to a rapture of sorts, don’t you? Aren’t you going to meet Him in the sky, when He comes in clouds of glory? Also you made some pretty hastily generalized assertions, how do you deal with Rev. 20:1-10 (and the 1000 yrs) exegetically? Or how about the Siniatic Covenant Yahweh made with Abraham (Gen 15 and 17)–Israel never has experienced the shalom of Yahweh in the LAND. Or how about Rom. 9–11, and the distinction between ethnic Israel (i.e. the remnant), and the Gentiles?
Anyway, I will be interested to see how you back up some of your assertions–and also see you answer some of the questions I and others have offered in this thread.
In Christ
I’m really tired so I won’t say much right now (head is foggy from setting up a new site for discussion such as these…I’ve got tons of them in my head).
Scott,
I said that they came up with the rapture doctrine to support dispensationalism NOT premillennialism. Even to be a dispensationist one has to a premillennialist not all premillennialists are dispensationalists.
John and Bobby,
can I answer you both later(after some sleep)?…yours is pretty detailed.
Need to make a distinction between historic premil and dispensationalism. The citation of the church fathers should note that they did not believe the Millennial kingdom would include ethnic Jews (without Christ, of course). These would go to “Hades, in Abraham’s bosom.” (Tertullian)
On the “restoration to Judea” promised to the Jews, this “figurative interpretation is spiritually applicable to Christ and His church, and the character and fruits thereof…For the dispensation of the Jews at first was imbued by earthly blessings through the law, and afterwards brought round to heavenly ones through the gospel by faith.” (Tertullian,Against Marcion, ch. XXIII)
John and Bobby,
1 Cor. 15, 1 Thes. 4 for me correlate with 2 Thes. 2 and also John 5:28-29 ” … all the dead that are in the graves shall hear His voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of judgement.”
Also Matt. 13:39-43: ” … the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be at the end of this world.
The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them who do iniquity.
And shall cast them into a furnance of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in their Father’s kingdom. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Seems the Lord says I’m coming back and will deal with everything when I do. I don’t see where the Lord says He coming back to rapture His church, and then come back seven years latter to do all this.
I just hope this gives folks at Sovereign Grace like CJ cause to rethink their practice of never expositing eschatology to their flocks. imho, they aren’t faithfully instructing their flock when they consistently avoid eschatology, which is an important part of many passages in the Bible (especially to be aware of today). I even saw it go so far as when reading a Psalm one of the pastors said - and I quote - “let’s skip that middle section about Israel”. This avoidance of eschatology was one reason why I left a SovGrace church.
I understand that the reason they avoid eschatology is because their hermeneutic is inconsistent - ie they do not consistently interpret Scripture literally and in context and thus are forced to spiritualize away much of the prophetic passages. I pray that they will review their hermeneutic and make it consistent so that they can readily incorporate eschatology in their preaching, though of course this would take quite a bit of *cough* humility to do.
Thankfully they do have a very solid stand on many core doctrines, however eschatology is fast becoming an important part of proper feeding of the flock as all signs point to the last days being just around the corner so-to-speak.
For the flock to not be aware of what is to come is indeed dangerous as they will be more likely to be led astray by deceivers and false prophets as those wax stronger as we head toward the last days. There is also the little matter of a proper Biblical support of the nation of Israel and the blessing that goes along with it but that’s for another post.
Is John MacArthur always right? no
[…] The Pulpit Magazine’s blog has a recap and some additional support. […]
@ Don and Sarah
Don:
What are your beliefs regarding 1 thes 5 and 1 Corin 15 in regard to the other verses? What I’m trying to get at is who is gathered to Jesus in the Clouds? Every single person dead or alive to judgment?
Interesting observation.
Sarah:
Go sleep! and i’ll check back
[…] Pulpit backs him up. […]
John,
The Lord is coming when everyone is saying peace. He will come as a thief, and yet the man of sin will be revealed first. 2 Thes.
The Lord will destroy the man of perdition with the brightness of His coming.
And it seems that the elect shall be raised from the dead, and those alive, that are His elect, will meet the Lord with the dead in the clouds and air.
I’m not exactly sure exactly how long a period of time this all is. That is from the man of sin being revealed, and then the Lord destroying him.
But it seems to me that this will all take place with His first and only Return. When the last trump sounds. 1 Thes. 4:16; 1 Cor 15:52
I believe the saints will have some trials from this man of sin. And then the Lord will come and gather His elect, and destroy the wicked. There are a lot of loose ends here of course. And to tell you the truth, I’m starting over trying to understand the teachings of Christ Second Coming.
“He that leads into captivity shall go into captivity. He that is killed with the sword shall be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints. …
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that obey the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven … “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from now on: Yes, says the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works follow them. ….
for the time has come for you to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” Rev. 13:10;14:12-13,15
It’s all there in the Word, but it’s very deep, and difficult to understand.
The truth that He will return, and He will gather His elect is comforting. And He will destroy the wicked should be motivating for us to go forth with the gospel.
Wake,
I used to attend C. J. Mahaney’s church in Gaithersburg, and I remember quite clearly that he taught against the secret rapture. In addition, his Pastor’s College, led by Jeff Purswell, teaches amillennialism. I purchased Purswell’s lecture on the topic.
They never put a great emphasis on eschatology, though, choosing to emphasize the more fundamental doctrines, especially the atonement, and I respect that.
I greatly respect John MacArthur. He has stated he wants the topic discussed, and that’s a good thing. I’m not Calvinist, but have benefited from many Reformed writers on this topic. To add to the discussion, one might turn around the questions somewhat:
Was Jesus a dispensationalist? No. (Matt. 3:9,10; 21:43; Acts 1:8; Revelation)
Were the apostles dispensational? No. (Acts 3:19-26; 15:15-19; Gal. 3:7; 6:16)
Were the early church fathers dispensational? No. Philip Schaff (cited in the main post) states:
“The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Cerinthus.”
[…] Why Calvinism Necessitates Premillennialism (Speaker: John MacArthur) (See a response from Kim Riddlebarger: With All Due Respect to Dr. MacArthur . . .) […]
Regarding: Or how about the Siniatic Covenant Yahweh made with Abraham (Gen 15 and 17)–Israel never has experienced the shalom of Yahweh in the LAND.
Does not Scripture teach that all of God’s promises to Abraham were completely fulfilled?
“Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.” Joshua 21:45
elnwood:
“In addition, his Pastor’s College, led by Jeff Purswell, teaches amillennialism. I purchased Purswell’s lecture on the topic.”
Thanks for that affirmation of what I suspected. That reality is hidden from the flock and unless you dig you will never find out their eschatological stance. That’s a shame, btw, that they’re amillennial. I find amillennialism (what I’ve studied of it) rather frightening, even shocking. I don’t just mean the lack of a consistent hermeneutic (which is what must be done in order to spiritualize away vast swaths of Scripture), but also what amillenialism leaves the believer with (this broken sinful world) and often leads to (dominionism and social gospel antics) as a way to address that.
Ah well, praise God that He has blessed some with the ability to illuminate the truth more consistently and provide guidance and pastoral leadership regarding what is yet to come - and also at the same time is still graciously holding close those who err in their eschatology. =)
John and Bobby…I over slept
). First, let me say that I don’t believe this issue to be “heretical” on either side as such topics like the Trinity etc. I’ll try to make this very short. Because I don’t believe in dispensationalism, then I can’t very well believe in premillennialism. I define the church as one body in Christ and not two different bodies…Jews versus Gentiles. Romans 9:6-13 & 25-33 confirms that we are one body. Therefore, if we as the church fulfill the new covenant (Luke 22:20, 2Cor. 3:2-6, Heb 7:22 & 8:6-13 & 9:15 & 10:14-18,29 & 12:22-24), then there is no need for an earthly millennium which means we have no need of the “rapture doctrine”. People came up with the rapture doctrine in order to get the Gentiles out of the picture so that Christ’s 1000 reign would be thoroughly Jewish in nature. If you look in Rev 20;1-10, there is no reference to the Jews, the nation of Israel or their Temple etc. If Christ is going to reign 1000 years with the Jews only, then why is this not stated in Rev. Dispensationlism is made up entirely on this thought yet Rev does not support this. When premill explain Rev 20 they contradict other NT Scripture concerning the end-time chronology. These other NT Scriptures are more clear on the end-times and should be used as “proof” for Rev…not the other way around. For example, 1Cor. 15:22-24 states that the end comes immediately after our resurrection at Christ’s coming and John 6:40 supports this by stating that our resurrection is on the “last day”. Jesus, Himself, said that the wicked and we will rise at the same time (John 5:28-29 & 2 Thess. 1:6-10 & Dan 12:2) which does away with the 1000yr span between the wicked and us. Paul in 1Cor 15:26 & 54-55, states that this resurrection defeats death. John leads this thought to the Great White Throne (this is where death is defeated) which follows the 1000yr reign. This leads us to the conclusion that the 2nd coming and Great White Throne is not separated by the 1000yr reign. Also, in 1Cor 15:24 it states that in the “last days” Christ gives the kingdom back to the Father, so apparently He had His messianic kingdom prior to the last days which is when Christ comes. Rev 20 describes Jesus’ “1000yr” (I don’t believe in a literal 1000yr) reign so we need to explain this. Well, wasn’t Jesus given His kingdom at His ascension? Yes (Matt.28:18 & Acts 17:7 & Col. 1:13 etc) Then that means we are currently in the “1000yr” reign. Christ is going to reign until He puts all His enemies, including the last enemy, death(1Cor 15:25), under His feet which is done at the Great White Throne. We also reign with Christ (Rom 5:17 & Eph 2:6) via the 1st resurrection which is salvation right now. The second resurrection occurs when both the wicked and saved are resurrected(John 5:25-29 & 6:40). The second resurrection happens when Christ comes back and we go to meet Him in the sky not to live in heaven but on the new earth. I hope I answered your questions.
Sara,
thanks, I’m more keen to your rationale, but I didn’t really see any type of argument for your views, i.e. from the text. Of course this medium makes it hard to provide such argument. I’ll come back later to respond further, and read your response more carefully later this evening.
[…] In addition to Tim Challies there is some additional thoughts on this over Pulpit. […]
[…] responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your ownsite. […]
@ Sarah
Really fast - I have so much to do tonight
First, thank you so much for responding, there was a lot of stuff there, but I totally agree this is not a heresy “issue.” No way, Greg Bahnsen was a heretic (nor could I prb beat him in a debate on this issue).
Let’s stick to my fav Romans 9:
I really can’t see the church in their. In fact, even if you don’t read very carefully, Paul is just saying “hey I want my ethnic Jews to be saved!” As a Korean person, I feel that way too about North Koreans.
6-13 is a defense of God’s promises to the JEWS about God promising them salvation that he has not abandoned them. And he defends that God has not left the Jews/Paul’s ppl ie not Gentiles but ethnic Jews, b/c he has saved a remnant b/c not everyone who is born from Jewish parents are the true Israel, but its the remnant.
“Not all Israel is Israel”
In modern language its
“Not all ppl who go to church and say they’re Christian ar Christian”
Once again:
1) Total specific address to the Jews
2) A defense of God’s promises to the Jews: 9:6 “But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”
3) Defense of God ie that there is a remnant of Jews (surely this remnant is not Gentiles is it?)
[…] Pulpit Magazine Riddleblog Challies […]
John,
. Paul had a soft spot in his heart for the Jews but he didn’t compromise the Gospel for their or his sake.
it’s not just Gentiles or just Jews here in Romans 9 but all of God’s elect…both Jew and Gentile. Yes, Paul wants all of his natural brethren to be saved and goes on to say that he would give up his salvation if that meant their salvation, but knows that not all Jews are God’s children when he states, “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “IN ISAAC your seed shall be called.” 8 THAT IS (emphasis mine), those who are the children of the flesh, these (These being the children of flesh) are not the children of God; but the children of the promise(what is our promise? Salvation…Jesus Christ who torn down the dividing wall and brought elected Gentiles into the covenant along with the elected Jews) are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” This is an example of election…the hating of one child(nonelect) and the loving of the other child(the elect) both from the same family. God made a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:2-14 to make him a father of MANY nations (He changed his name from Abram to Abraham meaning “many nations”)and He sealed that covenant with the sign of circumcision. All through the Bible (I have a blog on which I find Jesus Christ throughout the OT) you find God picking out His remnant of people and the foretelling of Christ’s coming. Many, many times in the OT He talks about the Gentiles “coming into the fold”. He demonstrates this by accepting Gentiles into the line of David and Jesus. Of course when Jesus came, the physical sign of circumcision was done away with because we have a new covenant under Christ who circumcises our hearts. The Jews are not going to have a higher spot in heaven than the Gentiles and they are not going to reign with Christ on earth for a 1000 yr while we are sitting up in heaven with God the Father waiting for that time period to be over. (BTW, In 1Thess 4:17 it says that we will be caught up with them to meet the Lord in the air…AND BE WITH HIM ALWAYS. If we are raptured away and only the Jews are going to reign with Him for 1000yr here on earth why does it say “we will be with Him always”? I submit it is because we are not going to be raptured to be taken away to heaven, but instead, to be meet Him in the clouds with the heavenly saints and come in together, as an army, with Christ leading the way to take what is His and live on a new earth). Many Scriptures contradict the thinking that Jews are going to be special…”God is no respecter of men” “There is neither Jew nor Gentile…” “There is only ONE body” “We are one in Christ” etc…these are not direct quotes as you know
Good discussion all! i find sarah to be right on the track.EVERY eye shall see him. Adam eve methuselah,Noah , pharoah, ahab , jezebel , malachi, herod , Paul, martin luther, some with shreiks others with great joy as the angels seperate them one from another. The persecutors will be in horror as the saints are given thrones to judge with their Lord, all the godless from cain to pharoah to pilate to bloody mary. Then the saints will rise into the air with their king and the wicked will be in despair and anguish as the earth is set on fire from heaven or the literal bowels of the earth is erupted in volcanic like conflagration, as they see The Godly In Christ escape forever Gods Wrath.All this ON THAT DAY (not days)
@ Sarah
I think you had it good at the start, but added something to the text - you inserted the Gentiles into a context that did not have anything to do w/ the Gentiles. Yes, I believe in one body, full equality, etc. but as for Romans 9 you made what I dub the “Fatal Jump” from Not all Israel is Israel, to going - well obviously Paul means gentiles.
I ask you to reconsider and look at the main context which is that God Word has failed b/c His promises to them are null (b/c they are not accepting Christ). Yours (any many others) assert that it is solved b/c “not all Israel is Israel” is gentiles - AND I MUST INSIST THAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT BELIEVING REMNANT JEWS HERE and that inserting gentiles is beyond the context of what is written here.
Maybe it will help if I am telling you what I think at each verse and than we can give our exegesis per verse instead of naming abstract ideals.
9:1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
Paul is saying he is sorrowful for just his Ethnic People, not the gentiles b/c…4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
of these following reasons. They were the people sovereignly chosen by God in the OT. Any mention of gentiles yet? I don’t see any.
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
Here’s where the rubber meets the road. Who are these Israelis that are not physical descendants? You say gentiles + jews, I say ethnic Jews only. I think its fair to say there has been no mention nor talking in reference to gentiles so far and I think the context will show he will not (until v 24) *Remeber that this is the question Paul (and us:) ) are trying to answer
7nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
— What’s the point here? Its Isaac vs Ishmael. Both born of physicial lineage, but only one is…
the TRUE ISRAEL, likewise w/ Jacob and Esau, physical birth does not determine the Identity of…
1) True, universal, and invisible church? No out of context
2) Gentiles and Jews Together now since gentiles are accepted fully by God and the veil is torn and b/c of faith they are now Israel? No out of context. Paul never once was talking about gentiles up to this point, if so please point out where he did. In fact, I will show you when Paul in this chapter (v24) does talk about it.
3) This is the answer to the question of “Who is the true Israel” the very people he felt sorrow for in verse one! It’s akin to the remnant in Elijah’s time the true Israelites were the ones of faith that did not bow their knees - see v29
9:24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Here you go Sarah, now he finally talks about gentiles and indeed we can obtain to the promise b/c of faith and be grafted and be one family.
Look at ch 10 and 11, the distinction btwn Jews and Gentiles are made throughout both chapters.
9:29And just as Isaiah foretold,
“UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH.”
Who is he refering to “left to us a posterity”? Gentiles NOPE! See v25. Hosea says he will call a people who are not his people to him ie Gentiles, making the gentiles calling distinct from the jews ie the Gentiles are a new calling in the NT while the call of the true Israel is God leaving a remnant among them.
John, I didn’t say that Paul was sorrowful for the Gentiles. I said this, “Yes, Paul wants all of his natural brethren to be saved and goes on to say that he would give up his salvation if that meant their salvation, but knows that not all Jews are God’s children when he states…” By “natural brothers” I mean Jews. The first part of chapter 9 is talking about the Jews, and yes, they were the chosen people of OT times (although God did have Gentiles in the line of David and Jesus like Ruth and Rahab)set apart from the rest of the nations. You are driving home my point
! Paul is suffering over the fact that some of his countryman, the Jews, are not going to be saved. He continues on to say in essence that it isn’t the word of God’s fault that they are not saved(vs 6),but it is because they are not chosen or elected(I’m not saying the entire nation of Jew are not elected. I’m saying that there are SOME who are not elected)(vs7-13)
“Here’s where the rubber meets the road. Who are these Israelis that are not physical descendants? You say gentiles + jews” I did not at all say that but instead said this, “but knows [Paul] that not all Jews are God’s children when he states, “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham;” This means that just because they say they are of the natural seed of Abraham doesn’t make them part of the spiritual seed of Abraham, or in other words, partakers of the new covenant.
“nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “in Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 that is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” The children of the flesh are the nonelected people, the Esau portion, not Ishmael. You are making the leap you thought I was making with the Gentiles! If Ishmael represents the children of the flesh then you and I need to close our Bibles and give it up! Paul is talking about two brothers only it’s not Issac and Ishmael…it’s Jacob and Esau look at vs10-13. There are only two types of people in this world the elect and the nonelect. There are not the elect, the Jews, and the nonelect. Paul talks about who the children of promise are when he talks about the “Jacob I love Esau I hate” concept of election. The children of promise is in vs 23-24…the Jews AND the Gentiles. He doesn’t stop there, however, he quotes Hosea…”Those who were not my people I will call ‘My people’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved’. And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ’sons of the living God’ And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out His sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” Keep reading vs30-33…they tell where the fault of the Jews not being saved lies that I talked about in regards to vs 6. Chapter 10 goes on to say that they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Chapter 11 states in essence that even with all this “bad news” God has not rejected His people(the Jews) because Paul is an example of being saved. He talks about how they stumbled(rejected the Gospel so God offered it to the Gentiles) in order for salvation to come to the Gentiles. They will be grafted back into the same olive tree that the Gentiles are grafted into.
“1) True, universal, and invisible church? No out of context” What? You need to use complete sentences.
“9:29And just as Isaiah foretold,
“UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH.”
Who is he refering[sic] to “left to us a posterity”? Gentiles NOPE!” I never said this…you are putting words in my mouth. Basically, you already had in your mind what you thought I was going to say and didn’t read what I said slowly enough.
“There are only two types of people in this world the elect and the nonelect”
Amen Sarah.
And it’s not to HIM who wills, or to HIM who runs, but it’s all about God’s mercy, and He shows mercy to whom He wills.
Is there unrighteousness with God if He shows mercy to Jacob and not Esau? Seems like that would be what people are asking, and Paul anticipated this objection, didn’t he.
Thanks John and Sarah for the nice debate.
One more thought. I believe the Apostle is carrying his thought from Romans 8:33, –”Who shall lay a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies”– right into Romans 9.
God chooses whom He will by His grace and mercy. he is sovereign. He seperates His elect from their mother’s womb. Whether it’s Jacob, or Paul, or you , or me.
[…] Kim Riddlebarger - “With All Due Respect to Dr. MacArthur…” 9 03 2007 This is one of the better responses I’ve seen so far to the now-infamous MacArthur lecture. In it, he addresses the points made in the companion piece posted on the Pulpit Magazine blog, which lays out the essential points of the lecture. […]
Amen, Donsands.
@ Sarah
1. I believe that there are only two ppl - elect and non-elect.
2. I deny that there is a 3rd category called Jewish ppl.
3. Romans 9 is dealing specifically w/ the elect and non-elect of Israel. I totally agree w/ your first two paragraphs, but somehow you figured in that all of a sudden in v8 Paul is now not talking just about elect and non elect Israel, but every single elect and non-elect persons.
4. [Not as imp] But I think that when Paul is saying Isaac is the child of promise he is comparing Ishmael (naturally born) v Isaac (promise). Its the same analogy and parallel he reiterates w/ esau (natural birth) v Jacob (promise) [Doesn’t change are argument either way just wanted to point that out].
5. God made certain promises to Israel (v6) and He is making good on those promises via leaving a remnant (elect) in Israel and He has not abandoned them (v29)
6. Did God leave a remnant or posterity as v29 puts it, for the Gentiles? No, God made a promises that He would make a ppl from ones called not his ppl.
7) #5 and #6 show that God, still electing, but working differently in two ppl groups.
Conclusion: Romans 9 is talking about the elect and non elect of Israelites. He is applying the concept of election to Israel in this chapter. I agree that we can take those concepts and apply them to gentiles (b/c His sovereign electing grace applies to us as well), but point being Paul, is talking only about Israelites in v1-23.
If you could point out which #’s you disagree w/ that would be great and if you tell me how you can justify Paul talking specifically about Jews only in v1-7 (as you seem to agree) in regards to election, to all of a sudden the world’s elect and non-elect in v 8 that would be great.
-John
Wake,
I would humbly ask that you reconsider your post. Just to be frank, I’m not looking for a debate here, however, I do think your post could be misleading. I’ve learned over time that when a person makes a NEVER statement it isn’t always warranted.
Sovereign Grace Ministries exist to plant Christ-Centered/Cross Focused Churches. Although within SG Ministries you may not find any “soap box” topics such as eschatology at the forefront, however, you will find the Cross. With that said, I would ask you to consider the following on their behalf.
The Preeminence of the Explicit Gospel Message:
The Church has been given the clear command to proclaim the Gospel. If the Church does nothing else, she ought to do that. Moreover, everything else the Church does do ought to be driven by, and oriented toward that proclamation of the Gospel.
The Apostle Paul provides a concise definition of what the Gospel is:
I delivered to you as of FIRST IMPORTANCE what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
Christ died for our sins. This is the message of the perfect obedience of Jesus for sinners. This is the message of the suffering and death of Jesus for sinners. This is the message of the resurrection of Jesus for sinners. This is the message that the Church has been given to proclaim. This is the Gospel.
Just because Jesus is mentioned in a sermon, song or prayer doesn’t mean that the Gospel has been proclaimed. The Gospel is not the message of Jesus’ moral teaching, of Jesus’ example, or of Jesus as counselor or energizer. The Gospel is the message of Jesus crucified for sinners.
This clear Gospel message cannot be omitted, deferred or assumed in the Church’s preaching. It must predominate in ALL public preaching which is SG Ministries “philosophy of ministry” People do not naturally know this Gospel, nor do they receive this Gospel by osmosis or from passing references. They have to hear it clearly proclaimed on a consistent basis.
This is abundantly clear in Scripture. Paul writes: I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2), We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:22-24), and finally, May it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:14).
Finally the Apostle writes, I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16), and faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17).
-Alando
John,
when Paul speaks of the natural Jews he normally clarifies himself thoroughly because he in other places teaches that we all are of one body and are children of Abraham according to the new covenant. Therefore, when he wants us to know that he is speaking of the natural Jews he says things like: “to the Jews” 1Cor 9:20 or “observe Israel after the flesh”(versus after the spirit) 1Cor 10:18 or “for my brethren, my countrymen, according to the flesh, who are Israelites…” Romans 9:3-4. He really clarified Romans because in other verses he calls the Gentiles “brethren” “Now I praise you, brethren…” 1Cor.11:1. Also, take note that in 1Cor 9:20 he calls the Jews “Israel AFTER THE FLESH” which coincides with Rom 9:8 “That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” So it isn’t Ishmael that he is referring to but the natural Jew who hasn’t become a child of promise. Look back in Scripture for when the promise FIRST came to us. Gen 3:15 “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed(the nonelect…not a bunch of snakes running around) and her Seed(Christ); He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel(talking about Christ defeating Satan and Satan causing Christ to suffer physically)” This promise was given before Abraham was chosen to be the father of the chosen nation. God chose a one nation in order to show His power, might, and holiness in contrast to the rest of the world. He never intended them to be the only ones who would benefit from His promise of salvation and He never intended them to be on some kind of higher ground than the Gentiles. I am in no way trying to say God abandoned the Jews…many of them are of the elect just as many of the Gentiles are of the elect.
“Conclusion: Romans 9 is talking about the elect and non elect of Israelites. He is applying the concept of election to Israel in this chapter. I agree that we can take those concepts and apply them to gentiles (b/c His sovereign electing grace applies to us as well), but point being Paul, is talking only about Israelites in v1-23.” You have this wrong. You need to read the rest of the story i.e. something along with Rom…like the rest of the Bible. I’m not trying to be harsh here but you are making a doctrine out of one chapter which is the wrong way to go about studying the Bible. You must interpret one vs with another vs in the Bible or else you come up with “What this verse means to me…” doctrine. I’m done now.
@ Sarah
It is heavy and unfair (ad hominem?) charge you levy at me by saying
“I’m not trying to be harsh here but you are making a doctrine out of one chapter which is the wrong way to go about studying the Bible.”
First, I wasn’t talking about dispensationalism, I was focusing just on Romans 9, so to charge me w/ making a doctrine out of 1 chapter is simply wrong - I was offering you the exegesis of one chapter (one by the way I have spent hours on and read a whole book on the first 23 verses - not to say I am right b/c of this, but to levy a charge of being wrong may be justified, but ignorance may be too much…)
Second, if you really want to we can debate dispensationalism.
Thrid, you said “So it isn’t Ishmael that he is referring to but the natural Jew who hasn’t become a child of promise” I think that is the point.
Ishmael was a biological child of Abraham like Esau, but they weren’t children of the promises.
“[H]e [God],is never trapped into making any particular physical descendent (like Ishmael) the heir of his covenant. But, the interpretation continues, the covenant blessings for which Isaac is freely chosen(before his birth) and from which Ishmael is excluded (in spite of descendancy from Abraham) do not include the individual eternal salvation.” - John Piper “The Justification of God” p. 61
Okay, this is NOT Dr. Piper’s view [he goes on to refute it], but the point being is that ppl for and against election, see the Ishmael v Isaac - the Natural flesh v Promised Child - argument in v 7. Once again, this has no bearing on my or your argument, just bringing out what’s in the text.
Summary:
1) I was defending my exegesis of Romans 9. I was not defending dispensationlism.
2) I may be wrong, but I am not ignorant of the dispensationlism v covenant theology debate.
3) v7 is talking about Ishmael (not promised) v Isaac (promised)
-John
No it’s not.
. If you are interested I have started a blog that will talk about Biblical debates and the first subject is concerning the false doctrine dispensationalism. I just started it so there’s not much on it yet. It’s at www.sjonee.wordpress.com
“Premillennialism just isn’t supported by Scripture at all.” This is really a statement that can not be supported. If John MacArthur who has taught the scriptures for over 35 years, using only the scriptures to form his doctrines I would say, he does use scripture to come to his decision about this doctrine.
John has taught Revelation twice and his poistion has always been clear, this is not new revelation for me about John’s positon.
Charles
Charles,
>)…
I don’t know who you are talking to but just in case it is to me(because I’m a self-absorbed American and I always think people are talking to me
R.C.Sproul has been a preacher probably just as long, but he is amillennialists. LOL! This conversation reminds me of 1Cor. 3:1-4. “I’m of MacArthur or I’m of Sproul or I’m of Washer or no one tells me anything for I am of Christ.” Speaking for myself, as I said in the beginning, this isn’t a heretical issue on either side and I’m not intending to disrespect Dr. MacArthur (I have many, many of his books and CDs). I just happen to believe as amillennialists do on this subject.
Here are some scriptures about separate things in the Millennium.
TWO GATHERINGS:
There are two separate gatherings. One for the elect after the return of Jesus. (Matt. 24:29-31) The other for the wicked at the end of the world (age). (Matt. 13:37-43)
The Gathering of the Wicked:
Mat 13:39 “The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;”
Nothing is said here about gathering the elect.
The “end of the world” does not occur at the return of Jesus. The old earth is not destroyed until after the 1000 year Millennium is completed. Rev. 20:11 “…from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.”
The Gathering of the Elect:
Mat 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”
Nothing is said here about gathering the wicked.
Two Resurrections Spoken of:
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto THE RESURRECTION OF LIFE; and they that have done evil, unto THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION. (The language here requires an understanding of two resurrections.)
It is not one general resurrection of both the good and the evil but two separate resurrections. There is no reason why they couldn’t be separated in time as shown in the Book of Revelation.
The First Resurrection: (THE RESURRECTION OF LIFE)
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. THE FIRST RESURRECTION. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in THE FIRST RESURRECTION: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
This first resurrection happens immediately after the return of Jesus. (Matt. 24:29-31)
It plainly states that there is a first resurrection of the righteous 1000 years before the resurrection of the wicked. It consists of TWO groups:
1. Those who is on thrones and judgment is given to them (I believe this represents the Church (as priests - I Pet. 2:9)- those who returned with Jesus at His return. They will continue to be with Him right through the Millennium.)
“and” (indicates a different group of people)
2. Those who have been beheaded for Christ during the Tribulation period.
The Second Resurrection: (THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION)
Rev 20:7-15 And when the thousand years are expired… 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; (this is the second resurrection of the wicked - the elect would not be described as “the dead”) and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (no one can be saved by their works)
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
This second resurrection occurs at the end of the world (age) 1000 years after the return of Jesus. (Matt. 13:39-)
For those who believe we are in the Millennium answer this:
1. How can the devil be bound for 1000 years so that he can’t deceive the nations anymore, and at the same time be “as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:?” I Pet 5:8
Walking about doesn’t sound very bound.
Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth,
Now he’s out deceiving again. All this can’t be happening at the same time.
2. The first resurrection of the millennium speaks of resurrected saints ruling with Christ. These aren’t just spiritually resurrected people. They were beheaded! If we’re in the Millennium then where are these people in their resurrection bodies.
3. How do you account for (or simply dismiss) the obvious time oriented statements in Rev. 20?
“bound him a thousand years” v2
“TILL the thousand years should be fulfilled” v3
“AFTER THAT he must be loosed a little season” v3
“the rest of the dead lived not again UNTIL the thousand years were FINISHED” v5
“shall reign with him a thousand years” v6
“when the thousand years are expired” v7
And all this is happening AFTER the return of Jesus.
It is obvious from all this that the return of Jesus is not the end of the world and it is not the time when the dead shall be resurrected and judged.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Isn’t it interesting, how one’s understanding of doctrine is developed. I never knew anyone who was amil until 1996. I only knew Pre trib and Pre Mill from my father over fifty years ago.
Having taught Daniel and Revelation over five times and having read over 100 book, plus commentaries, I came to the conclusion that I hold now.
In the last three years I have studied men who are Post or A mill. Certainly with an open mind to try to understand this position.
One must draw their doctrine from a study of the Word, of course, as we all do. We are influenced in our thinking by how we have been trained to study the Word, and by our teachers.
Some of us have been trained to look at the scriptures with greater detail and insight first, then affirming our findings by others.
My dad’s preaching had a great influence in my thinking because he was my dad. Men like MacArthur, Roy Kemp, George Norris, had the ability to articulate scripture in its context verse by verse, chaper by chapter where by affirming my own position as to what I believe.
As preachers we should teach with a purpose of training our members in doctrines. To teach Revelation or Romans or Genesis is necessary to develop an uderstanding of the doctrines of the bible.
Its as important I think to teach the doctrines of election as it is to teach the doctrines of the last things. Too many preacher ignore Revelation and Daniel and Zechariah. I am not so sure there are major and minor doctrines.
Charles
@ Riley Do we agree again!?! Did we miss the Rapture ~ Oy vea
You should’ve put in some 1 and 2 Thess and 1 Corinthians!
@ Sarah
Answer me this.
1) How does our Ishmael debate change either of our platforms? You keep defending it as if I’m using for an evidence for dispensationalim - all I’m saying is that it is obvious allusion in the text.
2) How is that an Arminian, Calvinist, Postmillenial, and dispensationalist all agree that Ishmael is being compared to Isaac? Did we all the camps get this wrong? Remember, you would have a very unique interpretation, since once again all camps recognize this comparison. (FYI John Piper is not a dispensationalist, I believe he is mostly Post-Mill)
Riley,
who are you addressing?
It takes Gentiles out of the equation and sets up a platform for dispensationalism. No, I didn’t set camp up all by my lonesome! I’ve got some friends…hard to believe I know…but I do!
It’s off to bed for me though…I’ve got church tomorrow…want to be wake to be able to praise Him for all the good things He has given me…including you! 
[…] Original post by unknown […]
This is a dreadful treatment of biblical text as well as history. I realize Dr MacArthur is Dispensational Premillenial but to destroy in this manner any opposing thought is well beneath him.
Yes the Holy Apostles and early church pastors expected Christ to reign on earth. He is reigning. Check out the teaching of two Kingdoms and see how Jesus reigns hidden in government.
Jesus said all authority in heaven and earth were His at His ascension:
Matthew 28:18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” ESV
If Jesus does not have all authority at present what are we doing baptizing and teaching?
Riley,
How do the Epistles to the Thesalonians fit into your two gatherings?
Especially 2 Thes. 1:7-10: ” … when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe”.
And: 2:1,3,8 ” concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, …. the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, … whom the lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.”
And I believe these correlate with 1 Thes. 4:13-5:4.
The last trump will blast, and the dead will be raised. The seventh trumpet will blast and loud voices will say “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”
I am not sure how the 1,000 years fit in here, but I am started to get some understanding.
God bless.
Amen Donsands!
If you’re curious, the 1000yr reign began when Jesus was given His kingdom which was when He ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father…so we are in the 1000yr reign now. Also, 1Cor 15:22-24 teaches that the end immediately follows the resurrection of Christ’s people at His coming. John 5:28-29; 2Thess 1:6-10; Dan 12:2 says that all will rise from the dead both the wicked and good so there is no 1000yr separating the two…both occur on the Last Day. 1Cor 15:26, 54-55 says that this resurrection will defeat and destroy the last enemy which is death. This takes place at the Great White Throne…more evidence there is not a 1000yr period between the two risings. Lastly, 1Cor. 15:24 states that on the Last Day Christ gives the kingdom over to the Father which means He already had it at His ascension. Hope this helps with the placing of the 1000yr period.
I just found this quote from Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), the same Justin Martyr quoted in this post.
Taken from “Dialogue with Trypho” “As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race.”
So, I guess he was a premill but he certainly wasn’t a dispensationalist.
Thanks sarah, I have to ponder the 1,000 years for a season methinks.
I appreciate the dialouge. I believe it’s essential to read, study, and learn these things. Whether i am pre-mil, post-mil, or a-mil, I should be excited about studing the Scripture that deals with Christ’s return.
For a more balanced presentation of the Church Fathers check out Wainwright’s book Mysterious Apocalypse and chapters 3 and 4 of Keith Mathison’s Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope.
It’s too bad that this article failed to mention that Eusebius was not a chiliast, Justin recognized that true and pious Christians were not chiliasts (Dialogue with Trypho Chapter LXXX), Schaff is not pre-millennial, and Papias seems to have derived his premillennialism from the pseudepigraphal work of 2 Baruch! Irenaeus also believed that Satan is bound now in this present age (Against Heresies V:XXI:3).
To say that the Church Fathers were premillennial is incredibly simplistic, naive, and misleading. It’s unfortunate this kind of misinformation is being spread.
I think pastor John MacArthur is right on the money! I think it is odd for those who adhere to a double hermeneutic(such as those in the reformed camp),who believe in God’s sovereign election, would deny the elect Jew not only in terms of there being a future elect remnant but also pertaining to the biblical covenants as-well as other aspects of the Abrahamic,Davidic, and New Covenant(s)too. Maranatha!
Some posts worthy of consideration and further comments:
With All Due Respect to Dr. MacArthur…
A Quick List of Amillennial Resources in Light of MacArthur’s Charges
I think that a proper understanding of the 70th week of Daniel is germane to one’s understanding not only for a case for Premillennialism, but rather a more clear understanding of God’s dealings with His people Israel. Jesus hardjoined the 70th week in Matt 24 and hence pushed it future. More could be said but this should suffice. Maranatha! There is no hope in Postmillennialism. Truly surreal!(ficticious nature of a dream)
Another post worthy of further consideration and comments:
Why John MacArthur Is Not “Reformed”
[…] Recap and some additional support. […]
[…] Unless you are fasting from the theological web for Lent (and if you are, good for you!), you are probably well aware of the recent kerfluffle (one of my favorite Carl Trueman words) over recent statements by John MacArthur. Seems at a recent conference MacArthur said that premillennialism is the only consistent position for a Calvinist. Plenty of amillennial theologians much more capable than I have already issued detailed responses to this, so I am not going to add my own two cents (although my friend Art could not hold back!). […]
Please feel free to post the cites so we may read the comments that have been posted by other Amill’s over his lecture. Thanks Art!
ok I found it! Thanks!
Those who can’t see a “rapture” as distingueshed from the properly denominated “second coming” are in the same error of the jews of the days of Jesus. Although the prophets had taught that the Messiah would suffer and a win they were not able to see the time gap between the two. Jesus came for the first time to earth in humiliation and will be back in glory. But as we read em I Thessalonians 4.13-18, Jesus will rapture his church - we will meet him in the air and then we will be in heaven. In the Second coming, as we see in the chapter 24 of Mathew in complete harmony with Israel prophets told about the victorious king. If 1 Theessalonians and Mathew 24 refer to the same fact the Bible is a complete confusion. If we are able to see the distinction between the rapture ann the second coming the Bible is a harmonius book.