The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum A-Millenialism

When it comes to eschatology I hold to an a-millennial understanding of the subject.
I have found that this is not necessarily always popular even among those who hold to TULIP.
In fact one person that I usually agree with when it comes to Scripture said to me (quite forceful I might add).

Now I understand that in reality Dispensationalists such as this person, in reality are not as consistent as they claim to be and don't hold a wooden literal understanding of eschatology.
However, I was wondering if there is a way to show this to someone without going into a lot of detail?
I have found that usually I am most successful in getting my points across when I am able to get their attention first. After that, they seem to be more open to what I have say.

Anyone have an idea that might be effective for that particular purpose?

Tom

Tom,

My initial approach would be the same as someone who makes the general and unsubstantiated remark that they don't believe the Bible is from God because it is full of errors and contradictions. The response demands a question... "Can you show me a few examples that support your view?" Doubtless, your Dispy friend is critical of the Amillennial view because has heard or read John MacArthur claim that anyone who claims to be a Calvinist will of necessity hold to Dispensationalism. It's a hermeneutical issue, without question. Of course, MacArthur is dead wrong and has been shown why on countless occasions.

Thus, you should ask your 'friend' to provide a few examples where he believes Amillennialism is inconsistent with a 6-day 24 hour creation view. Obviously, he won't be able to do this but he will most likely reveal HIS hermeneutical errors in the alleged examples and that's where you can take him by the hand and walk him along that flawed hermeneutical road into the brick wall which is where that view leads. Then back him up and show him the right road to take; the biblical "Grammatical-Historical" hermeneutic which leads to Amillennialism.

I'm confident you have read Poythress' What is Literal Interpretation, but here's the link for those who perhaps haven't read it before. There is also, which I'm confident you are aware and have read all the articles here in the Eschatology section, but again, I'll provide the link for those who haven't.

Doesn't John MacArthur attack on the A-Mill view as he did at the sheppard's conference and kim riddlebarger's responce, show that JM's dispy hit's at the gospel?

Greg....

Welcome to the Discussion Board.

I am going to assume that you have already concluded that MacArthur's [progressive] Dispensationalism "hit's at the gospel" and therefore, I'm interested in knowing how. Can you provide what you think are valid examples of how his Dispy view/hermeneutic changes the gospel?

Thanks.

Just don't see how a person as JM can believe that God has two peoples, two wives he has betrothed - Israel and the NT Church. In fact, the NT church appears to be a temporary concubine in the "interim period", after which he will return to his covenant people - ethnic Jews!

Thank you for the welcome Pilgrim..I just see that God would have to have two gospels and to me that would strike at the gospel--Learning here!!

Are you still there Pilgrim? This is what Gerstner wrote and we cant have one gospel for one people and one for another-- "What is indisputably, absolutely, and uncompromisingly essential to the Christian religion is its doctrine of salvation... If Dispensationalism has actually departed from the only way of salvation which the Christian religion teaches, then we must say it has departed from Christianity. No matter how many other important truths it proclaims, it cannot be called Christian if it empties Christianity of its essential message. We define a cult as a religion which claims to be Christian while emptying Christianity of that which is essential to it. If Dispensationalism does this, then Dispensationalism is a cult and not a branch of the Christian church. It is as serious as that. It is impossible to exaggerate the gravity of the situation."

John H. Gerstner

Greg
I don't think John MacArthur believes that Jews and Gentiles are saved differently. I think he believes that there are things in the last days that only Jews are part of.
Even Historical Premillenialists believe this to an extent, I have heard one argue that it is clear from Revelation 20 (not completely sure if I have the right chapter) that Gentiles are not included. Sorry, I don't remember the issue he was talking about; as it was quite some time ago.
Please understand I am not equating Historic Premillenialism with Dispensationalism; they are two different animals.
Perhaps Pilgrim has something to add to this?
Tom

Yes I agree Tom and thank you for your reply but it would be fair to say that John believes God has two peoples, two wives he has betrothed - Israel and the NT Church. As I wrote in a above comment, I know it is error but would it not be false a gospel or seriously flawed teaching?

Here's the deal... MacArthur's Progressive Dispensationalism is certainly "flawed teaching" from one who embraces Amillennialism. It's very foundation, along with every other premillennial system, flows from a flawed hermeneutic and a forced eisogetical reading of Scripture.

whether that necessitates a "false gospel" is an entirely different matter. IF one were to be consistent, I suppose, and carry through the teaching of Progressive Dispensationalism to its logical end, then it probably would result in another (false) gospel. The important question to ask, however, is... Does John MacArthur and his followers of his system teach a false gospel? For example, is there any evidence that he teaches there are two ways of salvation; one for the Jews and another for Gentiles? Does he teach that salvation is through faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone, or synergism; faith + works for Jews and/or Gentiles? Do you see what I'm trying to establish? Many, if not all of us, are sometimes inconsistent in our theology. This is NOT to say that those inconsistencies excuse the errors held. What I am saying is that let's not accuse anyone of something they are not guilty of doing/saying. There are a number of very outspoken individuals on the Internet who do this very thing and wrongly judge the brethren and even consign them to eternal Hell for something they never have embraced themselves.

So again, I have to ask if you have heard and/or read anything by John MacArthur, which certainly may be the case, where he specifically contradicts the biblical gospel. Without question, there are MANY (most?) today, even among Reformed circles who are preaching "another (false) gospel" which is tolerated without so much as a grimacing look. But is MacArthur one of those who teaches a false gospel? He most definitely tolerates those who preach a false gospel and calls them "brethren". But again, is he guilty personally of teaching/preaching a false gospel???

Yes I see what you are saying and he does definitely tolerate false gospel preaching. I am very skeptical of him and he has tapes out there that he has supposedly said that deny original sin and other things. Could show many tape #'s as he has said this but these tapes I haven't heard for myself so I can't confirm. Have been leery of him for awhile. A friend has heard this is just one he has heard of quite a few MacArthur says, “I believe in volition (free will). I believe, anybody who wants to anytime, can come to Jesus Christ and receive Him as Saviour” (Tapes- GC 2001; GC 45-73). Now as I said I can't confirm as I haven't heard him say this so I would not say he preaches a false gospel. Things are disturbing that he "tolerates those who preach a false gospel and calls them "brethren"." Also In Jack Hayford’s book, Pastors of Promise: A Practical and Passionate Call for Faithful Shepherds (Gospel Light Publications:1997), John MacArthur is found praising Hayford along with 29 other so-called “Christian” leaders (among whom are Neil Anderson, Robert Schuller, Bill Hybels, Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, James Ryle, Greg Laurie, and the late John Wimber). At the beginning of Hayford’s book, under “Praise for Pastors of Promise” (six pages of praise for Hayford and his book) MacArthur’s “praise” reads (on the fourth page of quotes):

“Jack Hayford is a model of diligence, faithfulness to the Lord and enduring loyalty to a local church. It’s the long haul that manifests integrity and proven character. Many have fallen in the battle. Hayford is still standing — a tribute to God’s marvelous grace.” I can't stand these preachers standing with men that are false gospel preachers and it is prevalent!! And as you said most today in reformed circles preach another gospel. We certainly are living in dark times in this country as this country has turned away from God and is in full blown idol worship. Here is a quote from our 1st. President--- We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.

George Washington
Presidential Inauguration
April 30th, 1789-- Anyways, have a great day my friend.

Greg

I have personally listened to John MacArthur on the subject of original sin. He definitely believes in the doctrine of original sin.
For example: http://www.gtycanada.org/resources/articles/A131
Also, John Macarthur's web site, has resources that you can find out a lot about what he believes on many issues.
I can't speak to the other issues you are talking about, seeing I haven't had time to look into them.
Concerning some of the quotes you are using; can you give more context to them?
The reason why I ask, is because there are people who are convinced that CH Spurgeon was not a Calvinist. They have quoted him to prove it. Yet, in actuality those quotes were taken out of context. Most of those quotes Spurgeon was making points in order to combat hyper-Calvinism.
Unfortunately, I have run into Calvinists in the last while that actually say those quotes prove that CH Spurgeon was (in their words) an "inconsistent Calvinist".
My point being, context is everything.

Tom

Tom, sorry I just seen this and all I can say is what I said above, have you seen Hayford's book. And this person has listened to him awhile back, not sure how long,but JM sent a bunch of tapes when they were tapes to a church he was attending. I haven't either personally heard these. Or have I heard him say that. I have watched countless Sproul conferences and never heard him say that. And understand context is everything. I am not saying he is a false gospel pastor. God speed.