The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Are Calvinism and Premillennialism Incompatible?

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]I must tell you that even as far back as 1982, MacArthur was teaching the perpetuity of the Moral Law. For, I heard him present this historic view personally. However, fredman would be most qualified to deal with the discontinuities between MacArthur's teaching and that of C.I. Scofield and John Nelson Darby.

---

John wrote a rather lengthy chapter explaining his dispensationalism and critiquing classic dispensationalism in his second book dealing with the Lordship of Christ, "Faithworks: the gospel according to the apostles." I don't have a copy in front of me at the moment, but I believe it was an appendix at the end of the book. In a nut shell, his main emphasis is a distinction between the people of Israel and the Church. His take is that the promises to bless the people of Israel will be literally fulfilled.

Personally, I think Joe's apparent contradiction between premillennialism and Calvinism is rather imaginary. I have found nothing in the scripture that in any way disturbs my understanding of Revelation 20 as describing a physical reign of Christ upon the earth over all his people, and the doctrines of grace.

Fred

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Personally, I think Joe's apparent contradiction between premillennialism and Calvinism is rather imaginary. I have found nothing in the scripture that in any way disturbs my understanding of Revelation 20 as describing a physical reign of Christ upon the earth over all his people, and the doctrines of grace.

---

What About Rev 20?

The problem in interpreting Rev 20, if you embrace the unbiblical teachings of Dispensationalism first, is that everything else becomes tainted. If one goes outside in the Sun and is wearing "green" sunglasses then everything is shaded green, thus, the real light is subdued. But, be of good cheer the truth will set you free. God is in the business of making eyes that see (revelation). Like baptism this is a hermeneutics issue, but still VERY discernible.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]It is funny you mention that, because I agree 100%. When I first started studying eschatology, I did it on my own. When I heard about POSTmillenialism, I believe it to be a hideous heresy, because that is what the liberal churches teach. Essentially, my view of POSTmillenialism was that it was essentially the social gospel, and how on earth could anybody believe that liberal junk?

---

P.S. I am not Post Mil!

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]It is funny you mention that, because I agree 100%. When I first started studying eschatology, I did it on my own.

---

Is this supposed to be some sort of superior method of study? In fact, most every cult, sect, religion was started by someone who "studied on their own" apart from what others had written concerning the Scriptures. Keith Mathison's excellent book The Shape of Sola Scriptura has a very informative and timely chapter named "A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura". Now before you go off the deep end and assume things wrongly, I am NOT denigrating "self study". It is truly valuable and something MORE people should do, rather than, e.g., rely upon Scofield's or Dake's or Calvin's "notes", etc. What I AM saying is that for one to be satisfied with their own conclusions after "self study" BEFORE they ALSO consult the history of the doctrine in question can and often does end in error. Christ's Church is a BODY in which there are those with varying gifts of the Spirit. Today, we have people running around as amputated body parts with little or no relationship with the rest of the body. I'm sure you know Paul's teaching on this all too well, no? Let me use my own experience as an example, if I may. My strong Calvinist views came after "self study" in contradiction to everything that was being preached and taught by those around me. In the beginning, when I came to learn of God's indisputable sovereignty, Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement for the elect, unconditional election, etc., I was looked upon as the proverbial "black sheep" and I began to have serious doubts even about my salvation due to my novel views. But, after getting my hands on the Jonathan Edwards' Works and then reading through books like L. Berkhof's Systematic Theology, John Owen's Works, etc., I was given great assurance that what I came to believe was the teaching of Scripture and NOT "novel", but "the truth once delivered unto the saints". There are no "Lone Rangers" in the Church of God.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]When I heard about POSTmillenialism, I believe it to be a hideous heresy, because that is what the liberal churches teach. Essentially, my view of POSTmillenialism was that it was essentially the social gospel, and how on earth could anybody believe that liberal junk?

---

Hopefully, you have now matured and come to realize that the gospel and eschatology of the "Liberals" has little to do with the biblical Gospel or historic Postmillennialism? Postmillennialism predates Liberalism by over a thousand years. If one were to base their aversion to doctrines held by Liberals, then all of Christianity would be discarded as so much heresy and junk. For they believe in a Jesus, salvation, etc... which is surely alien to anything the Bible teaches. Get my point? Although I do not personally hold to Postmillennialism, it is far more palatable and believable than classic Dispensationalism, which is a heresy and junk, IMHO. Simply consider the source.

In His Grace,

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]And everything is NOT tainted if you are a covenantalist? Please. You are correct as always, the issue is hermeneutics, but you have yet to make a compelling case why your particular green glasses are the correct ones to wear.

---

Well, first study the text of Revelation, without your sunglasses of Dispensationalism. Properly interpret the terms, without your sunglasses of Dispensationalism. Look at the original Greek and the comparative texts in Scripture, without your sunglasses of Dispensationalism. Then read the article that is posted. They will concur (that is the Biblical text and the article). Truthfully have you ever read a history on the origins of Dispensationalism? It will turn your stomach! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img]

Challenge yourself, read Hendriksen's More than Conquerors, Bavinck's The Last Things, Cox's Amillenialism Today, or Venema's The Promise of the Future. John Wilmot's Inspired Principles of Prophetic Interpretation is also highly recommended, but you will have to find it used someplace.

Your sounding allot like Johannah:

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]I am a Zionist. Premillennialism leads to that. Believing the Bible leads to that....I will read some of those articles, but I won't ever change my mind about Israel Hell will freeze over first.

---

What is the use of study if one is not willing to learn? BTW I use to concur with MacArthur before I began AGAIN to restudy the issue from as impartial view point as I could (I was even a Baptist at that time [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]). Thus, growth is possible if you are interested, but if one has the mind set that "[color:red]I won't ever change my mind about Israel Hell will freeze over first" then they have become unteachable and thus, incompatible with Calvinism. (P.S. Johannah stated what she did to be "dogmatic" about her belief, and though the phraseology was troubling, she is still teachable--please do not understand otherwise. Her wording was used just as an illustration of how some study Scripture--that is just to reaffirm what they already think they know).

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Why Not? Postmills can argue just like you that Amills are incompatible with Calvinism because it is a defeatist eschatology that limits the power of God's sovereignty to subdue the world.

---

When I made my study (I still am learning) I inspected all the different variations the best I could. Post-Mil did not make the cut, but it certainly had more going for it than some others... A-Mil is where I ended up. It was the ONLY one I found to be consistent wholly with the biblical text.

Defeatist Theology, only because it defeats every other view! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]

God's sovereignty is not limited in the A-Mil, but rather IMHO revealed. It glorifies the sovereign God to have His Word rightly divided. It glorifies the sovereign Creator to have a people He "keeps through" the hour of temptation, et. al.. Far from limiting His omnipotent power He actually puts it on display in a wondrous manner. A limiting aspect of the Pre-Trib is that Christ comes back with a shout so loud that some do not hear it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] (joking)

Please remember that we are speaking of compatibility. Truth may only be compatible with truth. Thus, when the question is asked, "if Calvinism is compatible with XYZ" and there there can ONLY be ONE real truth... one will naturally say that everything else is inconsistent. But, this does not mean that others holding different views on this issue are not Christians or true Calvinists. It merely means they are inconsistent - in their eschatology.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Are Calvinism and Premillennialism incompatible?

---

One of the most thorough refutations of premillennialism was written by the 19th century presbyterian, Dr. David Brown. His 1882 book, [i]Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?[/i] has never been sufficiently answered by premillennialists.

As for premillennialism being "incompatable with Calvinism", John Calvin himself dismissed the Chiliasm of his day saying "But a little later there followed the Chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a 1000 years. Now their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error, does not support them. For the number 1000 (Rev 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church, but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on the earth." [i]Institutes[/i], Book 3, Chapter 25, para 5.

In Calvin's commentary on Acts 1:8, he said, "For when we apply to it the measure of our own understanding, what can we conceive that is not gross and earthly? So it happens that like beasts our senses attract us to what appeals to our flesh, and we grasp at what is at hand. So we see that the Chialists (i.e. those who believed that Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years) fell into a like error. Jesus intended to banish from the disciples' minds a false impression regarding the earthly kingdom: for that, as He points out in a few words, consists of the preaching of the Gospel. They have no cause therefore to dream of wealth, luxury, power in the world or any other earthly thing when they hear that Christ is reigning when He subdues the world to Himself by the preaching of the Gospel. It follows from this that His reign is spiritual and not after the pattern of this world."

Also, the premillennial Bible Presbyterian Church in 1938, had to [i]revise[/i] the puritan 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith to make it reflect their own distinctive premillennial viewpoint. The BPC is unique among presbyterian and reformed denominations in having a premillenial confession of faith. (most reformed denominations are either Postmillennial or Amillennial). The 1647 (and 1788) WCF itself is worded in such a way as to allow for both Postmill and Amillennial views, but not for premillennialism.

The 19th century southern presbyterian Theologian, R. L. Dabney had called premillennialism "heterodox" in his [i]Lectures on Systematic Theology[/i].

The great 20th century defender of the faith, J. Gresham Machen said in 1923, "The recrudescence of "Chiliasm" or "premillennialism" in the modern Church causes us serious concern. It is coupled, we think, with a false method of interpreting Scripture which in the long run will be productive of harm." ([i]Christianity and Liberalism[/i] p.44).

Yet the [i]postmillennial[/i] Machen did go on to say with great charity:

"Yet how great is our agreement with those who hold the premillennial view! They share to the full our reverence for the authority of the Bible, and differ from us only in the interpretation of the Bible. They share our ascription of deity to the Lord Jesus, and our supernaturalistic conception both of the entrance of Jesus into the world and of the consummation when He shall come again. Certainly, then, from our point of view, their error, serious though it may be, is not deadly error, and Christian fellowship, with loyalty not only to the Bible but to the great creeds of the Church, can still unite us with them." ([i]ibid[/i]).

Yet despite these charitable words of J. Gresham Machen from 1923, only 15 years later, his student, the premillennialist Carl McIntire and several of his premillennial colleagues such as Francis Schaeffer, had separated themselves from Machen's recently formed Orthodox Presbyterian Church. They went on to form the Bible Presbyterian Church mentioned at the beginning of this post. Eschatology wasn't the only issue in dispute, but it was one of the major issues at that time.

For a well documented survey of the many false date settings and false predictions of premillennialists, see the book, [i]Armaggedon Now!: The Premillennial Response to Russia Since 1917[/i]. See also the book, [i]Last Days Madness[/i] by Gary DeMar.

As for dispensationalism, Oswald T. Allis's 1945 book, [i]Prophecy and the Church[/i] remains unrefuted to this day.

Lastly, see [url=http://www.reformed.com/pub/milenium.htm][u]The Premillennial Deception:
Chiliasm Examined in the Light of Scripture[/u][/url] by Rev. Brian Schwertley.

Colin

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Believe me, I knew when I came on this forum that most Calvinist are Amillennialist. I also know there is more to Reformed Theology than Calvinism. (I accidently picked up the word Reformed from one of the other posters and said there was no contradiction in Reformed theology and Millennial animal sacrifices, whereas what I meant was there is no contradiction in Calvinism and Millennial animal sacrifices.)

---

Johannah: lets get definitions down first all right? Calvinism is Reformed theology. However, if you wish to refer to that subset of Reformed theology (aka tulip soteriology) perhaps you could call it 5 points or something similar. Now if you wish to say that you hold to the 5 points with regards to how salvation is accomplished fine, but to say that you are Calvinist and hold to Dispensational Theology is wrong. To be a Calvinist is to be one who holds to Reformed Theology which as I said before is antithetical to Dispensational Theology.

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]I also know that the reformers believed the Law of Moses is important in sanctification. Is that the situation on this forum?

---

Here's a little something from the London Confession that should enlighten you
The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XIII

Of Sanctification

I. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally[1] through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them;[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified,[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]

1. Acts 20:32; Rom. 6:5-6
2. John 17:17; Eph. 3:16-19; I Thess. 5:21-23
3. Rom. 6:14
4. Gal. 5:24
5. Col. 1:11
6. II Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:14

II. This sanctification is throughout the whole man,[7] yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part,[8] when ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]

7. I Thess. 5:23
8. Rom. 7:18, 23
9. Gal. 5:17; I Peter 2:11

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail,[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome;[11] and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed to them.[12]

10. Rom. 7:23
11. Rom. 6:14
12. Eph. 4:15-16; II Cor. 3:18; 7:1

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Nothing in there says the law of Moses in important in sanctification, so I will assume the answer to my question is NO. So, like me, you think that Christ' death freed us from the curse of the law.

---

Let me quickly disabuse you of that notion. I am in no way an antinomian

The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XIX

Of the Law of God

I. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;[1] by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience;[2] promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[3]

1. Gen. 1:27; Eccl. 7:29
2. Rom. 10:5
3. Gal. 3:10, 12

II. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall,[4] and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.[5]

4. Rom. 2:14-15
5. Deut. 10:4

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[6] and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties,[7] all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.[8]

6. Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17
7. I Cor. 5:7
8. Col. 2:14, 16-17; Eph. 2:14, 16

IV. To them also He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being for modern use.[9]

9. I Cor. 9:8-10

V. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof,[10] and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it;[11] neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[12]

10. Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12
11. James 2:10-11
12. Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31

VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned,[13] yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin;[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of His obedience: it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatening of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. These promises of it likewise shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.[15]


13. Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 8:1; 10:4
14. Rom. 3:20; 7:7-25
15. Rom. 6:12-14; I Peter 3:8-13

VII. Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it,[16] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.[17]

16. Gal. 3:21
17. Ezek.36:27

Please pay close attention to the high lighted areas. I also suggest you get this resource:
Refcon 3
and read these articles:
The Moral Law a Rule of Obedience by Samuel Bolton
The Law and the Saint by A.W. Pink
The Perpetuity of the Law of God C. H. Spurgeon
The Law not Abrogated by Christ to Believers by Ernest F. Kevan

I hope that clears up some confusion.