Feed on
Posts
Comments

Let’s Start with the End

March 12th, 2007

EndDuring the Shepherds’ Conference, John MacArthur noted that we will do our best here on Pulpit to answer the many questions that were submitted by conference attendees during the week (but which couldn’t be addressed during the Q&A sessions due to time constraints).

Nearly one-fourth of the questions dealt with eschatology (specifically amillennialism) and another fourth regarded ecclesiology (from preaching to ordinances to pastoral care). Two other large categories were questions dealing with soteriology (including election, infants who die, and lordship salvation) and questions about preachers and preaching. Smaller categories included personal questions for John MacArthur and questions about charismatic gifts. Then, of course, there was the remaining pile of miscellaneous questions (not fitting into any of the above categories).

We will do our best over the next few weeks to address these various categories of questions (including the miscellaneous). Please feel free to ask specific questions within the comments section. We will do our best to answer them.

Today we will begin with eschatology. The topic is, of course, bigger than one blog post will permit. So perhaps the best way (at least at the start) is for us to point you to some resources that provide more information on the premillennial perspective.

Though certainly an incomplete list, here are some helpful places to start for information about premillennial eschatology:

Supersession Info Page (Michael Vlach)

Premillennialism (Wikipedia)

Exploring the Millennial Maze (Robert Thomas) 

Dispensational Hermeneutics (Thomas Ice) 

A Revised Hermeneutic of Premillennialism (Mark Mattison)

Premillennialism in the Old Testament (Arnold Fruchtenbaum)

The Biblical Covenants (The Master’s Seminary Faculty – Fall 1999 [scroll to bottom of page])

The Distinction Between Israel and the Church (Thomas Ice)

Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse (Larry Pettegrew)

Acts 1:6–7 and the Premillennial Position (Michael Vlach)

Romans 9–11 (Fred Zaspel)

The Identity of “All Israel” in Romans 11:26 (Matt Waymeyer)

Literary Genre and the Hermeneutics of Revelation (Robert Thomas)

Revelation 20:1–6 (J. Hampton Keathley)

Posted in End Times |

27 Responses to “Let’s Start with the End”

  1. on 12 Mar 2007 at 4:59 am   Steve Gentry

    Why not be fair and provide a list of reading material for other positions as well. Kim Riddlebarger has listed a few resources for the amillennial position here.

  2. on 12 Mar 2007 at 6:17 am   Robb

    I’d like to see a list of resources about Amillennialism and Postmillennialism, specifically resources written by men who hold these positions, such as Riddlebarger, Gentry, Hoekema, Mathison, Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, &c.

  3. on 12 Mar 2007 at 6:31 am   jsb

    I like Grudem’s treatment in his Systematic Theology; also Cottrell’s in “The Faith Once For All.”

    Michael Horton has a new book out, “The God of Promise,” which has the great benefit of being to the point. Riddlebarger, of course, has a couple of books out and is responding on his blog.

    The Internet has created a giant “White Horse Inn” hasn’t it?

  4. on 12 Mar 2007 at 6:37 am   John

    @ Donsands

    I like your take (though I disagree) about the thessalonian accounts (from the previous post).

    I highly rec. Dr. Pettegrew’s as it will address many of your concerns esp. Matthew’s point of view of the Olivet Discourse. In one sentence, its that the apostles were asking him

    1) When will the temple be destroyed
    2) What will be the sign of the end of the age
    3) When is your second coming

    Matthew 24:3 “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”"

    Jesus answers all these questions, and doesn’t mention the church b/c it hasn’t been established yet (acts 2). It is my feeling that it was most likely one of the “things you cannot bear at this moment.”

    I have a question that revolves around your interpretation of 2 Thessalonians. How do you reconcile the fact that the Thessalonians thought the day of the Lord has already come, if the day of the Lord is that awesome, catastrophic, coming back in Power and Glory sorta deal? The thing that puzzles me when I read those passages are the incredible differences btwn 1 Thess talking about gathering in clouds and missing the wrath and than 2 Thess in the wrath and than Jesus comes back (no gathering mentioned).

    Oh yea, I believe in the doctrine of imminency and literal 7 tribulation - so to reconcile the thessalonian accounts is easy for me. I guess it would be helpful to know what kinda paradigm you are running under in addition to one return.

  5. on 12 Mar 2007 at 7:11 am   The 2007 Shepherds’ Conference at PastorResources Blog

    […] Let’s Start with the End […]

  6. on 12 Mar 2007 at 9:28 am   Caleb K

    Nate,

    Thanks for this resource. I posted the following on Kim R’s blog.

    Kim,

    I think it is fair to say that Amill authors should carefully review some of the resources Nate posted and Pre and Post mill guys should read some of the resources you posted. Let’s not take MacArthur’s word for it nor should we take Calvin or Sproul’s word on it either. Let’s be honest, this happens on BOTH sides of the fence my friend.

    MacArthur and Sproul (I’m sure) are VERY familiar with these issues and the arguments used by “the other side.”

    Let’s not forget in all this we are Together for the Gospel!!!

    Caleb Kolstad

    ONE MORE NOTE… I THINK this was one of the goals of MacArthur’s address…For all of us (esp. Pastors) to go back to text of Holy Scripture and exegete each and every important passage dealing with end times.

    Some of the comments here http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/ provide some guidance as to how this conversation should take place (in a Christ-honoring way).

  7. on 12 Mar 2007 at 9:46 am   Brad

    The link to the articles on the biblical covenants (written by the faculty of TMS) is bad.

    Thanks for pointing us to all the helpful resources!

  8. on 12 Mar 2007 at 10:10 am   Nate B.

    Brad,

    Thanks for letting us know. We have now fixed the link.

    - NB

  9. on 12 Mar 2007 at 11:01 am   Wake

    John’s post above is well put.

    Also this resource listed in the blogpost is very good! Succinct and straight to the point:

    http://www.raptureme.com/tt15.html

  10. on 12 Mar 2007 at 11:52 am   Charles E. Whisnant

    This website reflects the positons that John MacArthur holds, as this should be. Which is one reason many of us log in.

    If I want another opinion I will search for another sight. I expect John MacArthur and Nathan to express the scriptural biblical position that will reflect this site.

    Those who hold other position should not expect Pulpit to give credit to those other positons.

    Charles.

  11. on 12 Mar 2007 at 12:41 pm   Wake

    With you there, Charles. If I wanted amill resources I’d have gone to another site. This is where I come hoping to see premill defense and exposition, especially given the owners’ penchant for a consistent contextual-literal hermeneutic, which is how one arrives at the premill viewpoint.

    The cry for “fairness” echoes that of liberal politicos who demand their favourite double-standard where their viewpoint must be promoted and heard not only on their sites but everyone else’s as well, yet they would never honestly represent or promote other views on their own sites. It’s a tired mis-use of words like “tolerance” and “fairness” that wears thin with folks who have faced it in the political world and now find such tactics seeping into the realm of doctrinal discussion as well. A sign of the times, perhaps.

  12. on 12 Mar 2007 at 2:45 pm   Jay

    Four minutes into the General Session 1 mp3 right now… good stuff so far :D

  13. on 12 Mar 2007 at 3:37 pm   IveyLeaguer

    I associate with the comments of Wake and Charles. Dialectic thinking has become the norm for the world and, sadly, for much of the church today.

    This is one place where it’s safe to let your guard down to some degree and direct that energy to something productive. The didactic thought process used by Jesus and the Apostles, and evidenced here, is something we should carefully guard and protect, even as it disappears around us.

    It would be fine to provide quality links to other positions for reference purposes at some point. But don’t distract from the objective here, which is an in-depth investigation and application of premillenialism itself.

  14. on 12 Mar 2007 at 3:44 pm   sarah

    Wake and Charles,
    I agree that Pulpit shouldn’t have to put up the other view point. This is their blog and people like me who disagree on this doctrine(but still love John M. and agree with a lot his other teachings)can go else where to learn and then come talk to you guys for healthy, edifying dialogue. I, just a few days ago, started a site about different Biblical issues (dispensationalism is the topic as of present) that I had actually considered shutting down because of my coolish feelings. I had to back to God in prayer and remember Who was most important. I can continue my blog and will but with a different attitude toward my God. Paul Washer helped me see this at http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=131 The sermon is called Pray and Not Lose Heart. It is relevant to what we do with doctrine…I highly recommend it! Oh, and he is a friend of John M :o )
    Those of you who are interested my site is www.sjonee.wordpress.com but remember I’m still working on it and still adding info.

  15. on 12 Mar 2007 at 4:15 pm   Jay

    Not to get off topic, but to sarah: just wanted to say that I have listened to over two dozen of Paul Washer’s messages and they have been a wonderful blessing to me. I don’t agree with every detail of what he says (especially when he gets off on a passionate tangent and gets a bit too ‘out there’ with his statements) but he does preach the true gospel and quite directly and passionately at that, which is what I need to hear every day. I often listen to his messages (mixed amidst ShepCon sessions on a CD of mp3s) in my car on my daily commute.

    As for General Session 1, 2007, after listening to it I am blown away by the excellent defense of Scripture, wonderfully presented and clear to the core. The convicting questions MacArthur raises about amillenialism should be enough for anyone who ascribes to an amillenial belief to be convicted to turn back to the Scriptures and read them anew without any of the amill presuppositions and figurative spiritualization of the passages they were taught to use. Were one to do so, they would quickly improve their understanding of God’s Word and His plan over the course of history.

    In the light of such solid expositional truth and piercing questions, there is something to be said about the liberal dogma infecting our educational system, society, and culture today that encourages folks to take offense when their beliefs are challenged or questioned, instead of using logic and reason to defend or concede points and honestly approach the issue without their pride leading the way. Not to mention retreating to prayerfully reconsider the matter and ask God for guidance and illumination of the Scriptures before they set out to read them anew.

    Anyway… excellent message and now on to Session 5 with the Q&A with MacArthur. I pray many will give Session 1 a listen and be blessed richly by it.

    I believe there is a very good reason why God put this subject so strongly on MacArthur’s heart at this time. The verse comes to mind:

    Habakkuk 1:5
    “Look among the nations! Observe! Be astonished! Wonder! Because I am doing something in your days–You would not believe if you were told.” (NASB)
    Habakkuk 1:5
    “[ The LORD’s Answer ] “Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your daysthat you would not believe if told.” (ESV)

  16. on 12 Mar 2007 at 7:57 pm   sarah

    I’m listening to the conference now. I’m just a few minutes into hearing the 1th General Session. Just as I was expecting, it is not JUST on premill but equally, if not more, emphazises dispensationalism.

  17. on 12 Mar 2007 at 8:11 pm   sarah

    I do have a question. Why does he think that amill’s think we don’t believe the Jews are included in the new covenant? Why does he think that we believe that they screwed up their chance so they don’t get to be apart of the elect? Why doesn’t he realize that we think that both Jew and Gentile are the spiritual Israel that Jesus brought together Jews and Gentiles when He died on the cross as Eph. 2:12-14 states, “that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ”…this Scripture leaves no one out! So amill’s don’t hold to election willy nilly but claim it for ALL nations as God promised Abraham…that He would make many nations of him. I feel so passionately about this not for mankind’s sake but for the sake of the Cross. Dividing God’s people into two bodies isn’t Scriptural.

  18. on 13 Mar 2007 at 12:39 am   Catch of the Day « Unbound

    […] Raise an eyebrow as: Pulpit’s slightly one sided list gets some help from the comment section. Read a good book…review: Challies reviews The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World. Looks like a must read. […]

  19. on 13 Mar 2007 at 4:27 am   Jay

    sarah somewhere in the answer to your question is the reality that the Jews have been persecuted since the rejection of the Messiah at His first coming, which supports what Scripture says would happen to them as a result of rejecting Christ. There are two aspects to consider: 1 - the necessity of their rejecting Christ so that the gospel would then proceed to be available to the Gentiles. Ponder that for a while.
    Consider how we are only even able to partake in this great salvation because of their rejecting Him.
    Realize that it is not as though the Gentiles are a superior race or somehow smarter, better-able-to-keep-a-covenant-with-God, or anything else. It is simply God’s sovereign grace that we have been able to share in His redemptive plan. And so, logically, as God says in Ezekiel 36, He will still keep his promises to Israel (the Jews) for His namesake (i.e. not dependent on their performance, because He foreknew they would be unable to and thus why He made the covenant unilaterally). He is simply allowing the apostate Jews who rejected Him to endure many things until the time of His revelation to them as the Messiah as foretold in Scripture.
    Actually I’m not really sure why I’m even writing this since MacArthur says it all so very clearly in his message.
    And a general comment not directed toward anyone: MacArthur speaks gently yet firmly, with clarity and at a pace that one can easily follow (especially with the Pause button on our mp3 playing software). It will forever mystify me how people can hear something simple and yet still not understand it (or perhaps just refuse to accept it).

  20. on 13 Mar 2007 at 4:35 am   Jay

    oh and aspect #2 to their rejecting Christ was that they would then be apostate and go through trial and tribulation until the time of His return. Satan would love to destroy the Jews and thus invalidate God’s eternal promises to them to try to prove God a liar. While God has allowed much persecution of them, He has also sovereignly guided them through it all. There IS a reason why Jews are back in their land, though we know it is only partially fulfilling since they are yet to be renewed in heart and mind and do not fully control their land and have much yet to go through.

    But regardless of the realities of history and this present time for the Jews, there is something to be said for a proper perspective on the Church age. Christians from a replacement/amill perspective think much too highly of the Church and that is part of why Christianity (I am speaking of the group of people labeled as such though many of whom are not genererate or truly followers of Christ) is growing more and more apostate and heading in a downward spiral. They think too highly of themselves - as if God prototyped his “chosen people” with Israel but then *bam* new, improved Version 2.0, the Church, is now the chosen people. It’s a silly mindset yet one that is common among those who deviate from a consistent contextual-literal hermeneutic. It smells a lot like the “master race” mentality of Hitler and in reality is indeed a strong cause for anti-semetism by Christians and especially anti-Zionism (that is, not supporting the Jews’ return to and establishment of Israel).

  21. on 13 Mar 2007 at 4:41 am   Jay

    I apologize in advance for the typos in those posts (like writing “generate” instead of “regenerate”) and not explaining as clearly as I probably should have that I am speaking in a way to hopefully make one rethink the concept of the all-conquering Church, when I say things like “we are only even able to partake in this great salvation because of their rejecting Him”. I think I clarified what I mean well enough when two sentences later I say that it is only God’s sovereign grace and plan for redemption that we are partakers and certainly it was not as though it was up to the Jews, but again, early morning posts often don’t make points as clearly as one intends. =/

  22. on 13 Mar 2007 at 11:05 am   sarah

    Jay,
    the problem is simple. Premill’s/dispen’s have got the wrong definition of who Israel is. When you get this wrong you get everything wrong.
    “Realize that it is not as though the Gentiles are a superior race or somehow smarter, better-able-to-keep-a-covenant-with-God, or anything else.” no, your right, like the Jews, Gentiles are just as depraved and in need of a Savior.

  23. on 13 Mar 2007 at 4:11 pm   Jay

    sarah,

    I think it is said best in the latest blogpost:

    The New Covenant was made with Israel, with the Jews (Heb. 8:8, 10). The New Covenant is not made with the church. Rather, it is made with the same people the Old Covenant was made with: Israel. Gentiles can be beneficiaries of the New Covenant, just like they could be beneficiaries of the Old (cf. Gen. 12:3). But both covenants were made with Israel alone. Israel as a nation rejected God by rejecting His Son. But God has never rejected Israel, nor has He transferred His covenant with her to anyone else.

    For the time being, the Gentiles share in the blessings of the New Covenant—as spiritual descendants of Abraham (Gal. 3:7–8, 29). But this does not negate the unconditional nature of the New Covenant made with ethnic Israel. One day, after Gentiles have had sufficient time to respond to the gospel, all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26). She will be grafted back into the trunk of covenant salvation (cf. Rom. 11:17–24).

  24. on 13 Mar 2007 at 8:31 pm   David

    Christ is in our midst!

    At somepoint during this discussion over the next few weeks it would be appropriate to address the below posts by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger on this specific topic. They are worthy of a response.

    A Quick List of Amillennial Resources in Light of MacArthur’s Charges

    With All Due Respect to Dr. MacArthur…

    Why John MacArthur Is Not “Reformed”

  25. on 14 Mar 2007 at 5:21 am   Words » Blog Archive » Premillenialism vs. Amillenialism

    […] Resources on Premil Eschatology. […]

  26. on 14 Mar 2007 at 11:04 am   Michael

    I for one enjoyed very much John’s Opening Session. As he has done through out the 27 years I’ve read his books and heard him speak, I left thinking ‘This is what I believe that Scriptures teaches on this and I’m glad some one has said it’. Michael

  27. on 15 Mar 2007 at 8:21 pm   MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should be a Premillenialist « Faith by Hearing

    […] Pulpit Magazine is currently doing a series answering key objections in End Times Q&A here>>> […]