Comments on: Why Calvinism Necessitates Premillennialism

By: Silas Chaves

Silas Chaves — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:24:42 +0000

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.

By: David Mora

David Mora — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:05:55 +0000

ok I found it! Thanks!

By: David Mora

David Mora — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:46:56 +0000

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!

By: Sacred Journey » Blog Archive » Amillennialism Resources

Sacred Journey » Blog Archive » Amillennialism Resources — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:52:32 +0000

[...] 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!). [...]

By: Words » Blog Archive » Premillenialism vs. Amillenialism

Words » Blog Archive » Premillenialism vs. Amillenialism — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:11:27 +0000

[...] Recap and some additional support. [...]

By: David

David — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:05:46 +0000

Another post worthy of further consideration and comments: Why John MacArthur Is Not "Reformed"

By: David Mora

David Mora — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:50:50 +0000

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)

By: David

David — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:52:37 +0000

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

By: David Mora

David Mora — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:45:56 +0000

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!

By: Robb

Robb — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:04:05 +0000

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.