# What is your Millennial Position?



## Bill The Baptist

Since we are already talking about this issue, I thought we would do a poll to see where everyone on PB stands on this issue.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Post-Mill


----------



## sastark

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Post-Mill


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Post Mil and Amil are close depending on whether or not you are an optimistic Amil or not and whether or not you hold to a literal 1000 year reign or not from the Post Mil position.


----------



## ryanhamre

Amil


----------



## Steve Curtis

Amil


----------



## tcalbrecht

See here.


----------



## Jeffriesw

Amil. 

Sent from my iPhone


----------



## T.A.G.

I believe that only the faithful baptist churches get raptured and then a 7yr tribulation for non baptist churches and non believers and then for a 1000 years Jesus will be in Jerusalem finally as King.

....

Yes folks, that is actually a belief, though of course I don't believe that, Post-Mill-Powers-Activate


----------



## discipulo

Amil 

Responding to Richard's suggestion on a similar thread that Amills are Postmills that lost their nerve, I say Amills are realistic Postmills. 

Yes, the Lord is gathering His Church, but the world still lies in the power of the evil one 1 John 5:19, and only when Christ returns then definitely things will really get better!


----------



## Bill The Baptist

T.A.G. said:


> I believe that only the faithful baptist churches get raptured and then a 7yr tribulation for non baptist churches and non believers and then for a 1000 years Jesus will be in Jerusalem finally as King.



Yeah, and Jesus wrote the KJV. You had me going there for a minute.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Postmill.


----------



## discipulo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Post Mil and Amil are close depending on whether or not you are an optimistic Amil or not and whether or not you hold to a literal 1000 year reign or not from the Post Mil position.


 
Not to mention that the Premills may be Historical - more likely the ones here on the PB - or Dispensational Premills.

On another thread there were also the Pan-Mills, the Saw-mills, the Other-Mills, etc....


----------



## kodos

Amil


----------



## MLCOPE2

discipulo said:


> Amil
> 
> Responding to Richard's suggestion on a similar thread that Amills are Postmills that lost their nerve, I say Amills are realistic Postmills.
> 
> Yes, the Lord is gathering His Church, but the world still lies in the power of the evil one 1 John 5:19, and only when Christ returns then definitely things will really get better!



 I couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## Rich Koster

I couldn't vote. I'm an Acts 1:11er.


----------



## JM

I moved from Pretrib Premil => Prewrath Premil => Historic Premil => Amil. After being frustrated with doing my best to justify a Premil understanding I set aside the study of eschatology altogether. About a year latter while discussing the Premil coming of Christ with someone I realized the position just didn't make all that much sense. 

jm


----------



## Berean

Amil


----------



## DMcFadden

Amil. Premil for most of my life; Amil last several years. Sortof when I became a man, I put away . . . Oh, never mind!

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Premils (at least of the dispensational kind) have all the cool charts, graphics, novels, stacks of totally certain books, exacting calendars, and scary movies. What do Amils have . . . nerdy seminary professors with European family names and a lot of "I don't knows." Man, what a ripoff.


----------



## Scot

Amil but strongly considering postmil.


----------



## semperreformata

Amil


----------



## Stephen L Smith

I have previously said to my Premill brethren that the only advantage I can see of the Premill view is that it gives the church another 1000 years to baptise all the Paedobaptists before we all enter heaven.


----------



## T.A.G.

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have previously said to my Premill brethren that the only advantage I can see of the Premill view is that it gives the church another 1000 years to baptise all the Paedobaptists before we all enter heaven.


 
haha Greatness


----------



## Scot

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have previously said to my Premill brethren that the only advantage I can see of the Premill view is that it gives the church another 1000 years to baptise all the Paedobaptists before we all enter heaven.



You mean that it will give the credos 1000 yrs. to repent of denying the covenant sign to their children before we all enter heaven.


----------



## Scott1

It's helpful to divide premillennialism into:

1) classical premillennialism
2) modern dispensational premillennialism


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Wow! Only 2 premillennial people on the whole board after two days of this thread being open!

If I had known that I would have never posted a thread asking for premillennial resources. I apologize. I didn't know ya'll were so anti premill. I certainly wasn't trying to start a stink. I honestly thought there were a lot of premil people here as well as the other views.

This is obviously not a forum for me to discuss eschatology in so I will refrain from that forever more on the PB and stick to things we have in common. I am interested in eschatology so I will discuss it in other places with premillennial people so I can grow in that area though.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> This is obviously not a forum for me to discuss eschatology in so I will refrain from that forever more on the PB and stick to things we have in common. I am interested in eschatology so I will discuss it in other places with premillennial people so I can grow in that area though.



I don't mind discussing and debating, in fact I enjoy it. You just have to keep in mind that most people are going to disagree with you about eschatology on the PB.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is obviously not a forum for me to discuss eschatology in so I will refrain from that forever more on the PB and stick to things we have in common. I am interested in eschatology so I will discuss it in other places with premillennial people so I can grow in that area though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind discussing and debating, in fact I enjoy it. You just have to keep in mind that most people are going to disagree with you about eschatology on the PB.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks. I understand. However, I'm not really in a position to really debate eschatology as I haven't spent as much time in it as I should, so in that thread I was actually just looking for older and wiser premils to give me some resources.

I think debate is great and healty for christians as long as it is understood to be constructive and not combative.


----------



## torstar

Osage Bluestem said:


> Wow! Only 2 premillennial people on the whole board after two days of this thread being open!
> 
> If I had known that I would have never posted a thread asking for premillennial resources. I apologize. I didn't know ya'll were so anti premill. I certainly wasn't trying to start a stink. I honestly thought there were a lot of premil people here as well as the other views.
> 
> This is obviously not a forum for me to discuss eschatology in so I will refrain from that forever more on the PB and stick to things we have in common. I am interested in eschatology so I will discuss it in other places with premillennial people so I can grow in that area though.


 


No stink is taken, it is a touchy subject sometimes.

A good question would be how many former pre-mills are now amill.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

torstar said:


> A good question would be how many former pre-mills are now amill.



Let's face it, Dispensationalism has ruined the premillennial view. Many people may still lean towards a premill understanding, but they are so embarrased by the Dispensational crowd that they have moved to amillenialism out of pure shame.


----------



## torstar

Bill The Baptist said:


> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question would be how many former pre-mills are now amill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, Dispensationalism has ruined the premillennial view. Many people may still lean towards a premill understanding, but they are so embarrased by the Dispensational crowd that they have moved to amillenialism out of pure shame.
Click to expand...

 


I don't want to recall a few chats I had back in the day with people trying to convince me of amill or other Reformed matters... 

Gratitude is given to those who patiently and lovingly waited me out.


----------



## DMcFadden

Bill nailed it. The premil view has a long and respectable history. Early church writers tended toward a naive premillennialism, unfettered by the distinctions and caveats of later writers, particularly the dispensational ones. Among the NT scholarly fraternity, premils often say that the "only reason" they continue to be premil is the difficulty of reading Rev. 20 otherwise. 

Schreiner is the rare example of a fellow who moved from the amil to the premil camp, most go in the opposite direction. In fact, I have known a number of folks who have moved from the premil to amil camps (like me), but Schreiner is just about the only one I can remember moving in the opposite direction.

David, there are more premils on the PB than answered the survey. The real point of argument on PB typically concerns the differences between amil and postmil, even though the one is a subset of the other. Go figure. I guess we reserve our hottest rhetoric for those who differ from us yet are closest to us.


----------



## Scott1

Osage Bluestem said:


> Wow! Only 2 premillennial people on the whole board after two days of this thread being open!
> 
> If I had known that I would have never posted a thread asking for premillennial resources. I apologize. I didn't know ya'll were so anti premill. I certainly wasn't trying to start a stink. I honestly thought there were a lot of premil people here as well as the other views.
> 
> This is obviously not a forum for me to discuss eschatology in so I will refrain from that forever more on the PB and stick to things we have in common. I am interested in eschatology so I will discuss it in other places with premillennial people so I can grow in that area though.


 
What I've learned here on the Board, and what was not clear to me in the past is that,

Premillennialism assumes two resurrections, two separate events rather than the one event of the Westminster Standards (and that of the doctrine of Scripture).

Also, modern dispensational premillennialism assumes only a physical resurrections, that is "resurrection" means physical resurrection only. Reformed uses "resurrection" as BOTH spiritual (the first death) and physical (when bodies are resurrected at the Second coming).

Modern dispensational premillennialism is an extreme form of classical premillennialism, and the former is completely intertwined with dispensationalism, no way around it.

I would have been surprised too, in the not distant past....


----------



## Gage Browning

PAN-Mil...."it will all Pan-Out in the end!" ... (Actually Amil)...


----------



## Peairtach

Postmil. This survey seems to happen every six months on the PB.

I think postmillennialism sometimes suffers from some of its advocates over-exaggerating the nature of the Golden Age before Christ's return, when it would be more accurate to posit a Silver Age.

Heaven and the New Heavens and the New Earth will be Golden compared to the best of the postmillennial Silver Age.

E.g. True Christians will still struggle with their weight during the Silver Age.

Many Christians are already enjoying a Postmillennial lifestyle - in measure - even in our own day,



> but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken. (Micah 4:4, ESV)



although many believers don't.


----------



## Steve Curtis

DMcFadden said:


> Among the NT scholarly fraternity, premils often say that the "only reason" they continue to be premil is the difficulty of reading Rev. 30 otherwise.



Yes, Revelation 30 has always proved a bit tricky exegetically . . .


----------



## Gord

Pre Mil. Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Gord said:


> Pre Mil. Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist



I love Macarthur as much as anyone, but in this area he is a dispensationalist through and through.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Gord said:


> Pre Mil. Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist



And Sam Waldron's response to MacArthur:

Amazon.com: MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto (9780980217926): Samuel E. Waldron: Books


----------



## Manuel

I would say I am Amil, although I don't know if belief in a literal earthly kingdom of the Lord Jesus disqualify me as Amillennial.


----------



## Andres

Osage Bluestem said:


> Thanks. I understand. However, I'm not really in a position to really debate eschatology as I haven't spent as much time in it as I should, so in that thread I was actually just looking for older and wiser premils to give me some resources.



If you admit yourself that you haven't spent much time in the study of eschatology, do you really think you're in a position to take a defensive stance against premillennialism? I would ask why you are premillennial if you haven't given much study to eschatology? Instead of taking your ball and going home because everyone doesn't agree with you, this should encourage you to investigate why it is that the majority on this board hold to an amillennial position. Don't hold to your postion out of pride or tradition, but rather hold to a position because you have searched the scriptures and found it to be true. As others have already mentioned, you are most welcome to ask questions about eschatology. In fact I would encourage you to do so in order to better educate yourself. Again, just remember that just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean it should be the end of the conversation. Blessings in your future studies brother.


----------



## Josh Williamson

Post-Mil. I'm a recent convert from Historic Premil.


----------



## T.A.G.

Josh Williamson said:


> Post-Mil. I'm a recent convert from Historic Premil.


 
Good to see you on here brother


----------



## Reformed Southerner

I'm Amill. A good book to read is Kim Riddlebarger's "A case for amillennialism." and " amillennialism today" by William Cox. Kim Riddlebarger also did a great series on Amilliennialism which you can get free off his blog.


----------



## semperreformata

Reformed Southerner said:


> A good book to read is Kim Riddlebarger's "A case for amillennialism."


 Agree with this, he handles the subject well and sorts through important texts such as the Olivet Discourse ,Revelation 20 and a few others. It was certainly helpful for me.


----------



## au5t1n

kainos01 said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Among the NT scholarly fraternity, premils often say that the "only reason" they continue to be premil is the difficulty of reading Rev. 30 otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Revelation 30 has always proved a bit tricky exegetically . . .
Click to expand...

 
Mostly because nobody can find it. 

I'm optimistic amillennial, I think.


----------



## Peairtach

Manuel said:


> I would say I am Amil, although I don't know if belief in a literal earthly kingdom of the Lord Jesus disqualify me as Amillennial.


 
Christ is literally reigning on Earth _as well as_ in Heaven:



> And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven _and in earth_. (Matt 28:18)



If you believe that Christ will make extensive and deep inroads by the work of His Spirit, Word, Church and Providence into the the squatting by the Devil and his minions in Christ's Kingdom, such that all nations are Christianised, then you are postmil.

Do you believe that India will one day be called a Christian nation? Or China? Or that the USA and Great Britain will be called Christian again?


----------



## au5t1n

Richard Tallach said:


> If you believe that Christ will make extensive and deep inroads by the work of His Spirit, Word, Church and Providence into the the squatting by the Devil and his minions in Christ's Kingdom, such that all nations are Christianised, then you are postmil.



Even if you also believe that the millennium spans the entire church age?


----------



## E Nomine

Pre-mill is all I have ruled out.


----------



## Peairtach

austinww said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that Christ will make extensive and deep inroads by the work of His Spirit, Word, Church and Providence into the the squatting by the Devil and his minions in Christ's Kingdom, such that all nations are Christianised, then you are postmil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you also believe that the millennium spans the entire church age?
Click to expand...


I think most postmils believe this now, as far as I'm aware.

I suppose some might say that "the millennium proper" - the "Silver" or "Golden Age" - would begin with events such as the conversion of the Jews, the overthrow of the Roman Catholic Church, the end of state-sponsored persecution of Christians, or other events.

Both amil and postmil are postmil in orientation i.e. the Second Advent marks the end of the millennium. The difference between them is in what they say happens between now and the end.

Postmils say that the Bible teaches that the nations willl be Christianised, war will end, etc.

Some amils say that this might happen but they cannot be sure, while others deny it will happen.


----------



## torstar

It would take the providence of God to have this world end in nothing but a downward spiral of apostasy and hate towards Him and His church.

Have to wait and see what pans out over the next hour to the next 200,000 years of the planet.


----------



## Manuel

-I believe that Christ is reigning on Earth as well as in Heaven right now and that is what I call his Heavenly reign, and that's what the book of Revelation describes as the Millennium.

-Regarding the Christianizing of the nations I can't say one way or the other, but I tend to the pessimistic side, I don't know exactly why (maybe tradition).

-I believe that at a particular point in time that the Bible calls "the day of the Lord", "the Last Day", "The end of the age", "that day", etc. the Lord Jesus will return and He will raise his elect from all the ages in the resurrection of the righteous; saints who are alive at that moment will be glorified and raised with the resurrected; the earth will be destroyed by several cataclysmic events that will culminate in fire coming down from Heaven. This will be followed by the judgment, and after the judgment death will be destroyed and the Lord Jesus will deliver the kingdom to the Father and they will reign for all eternity over the glorified or renewed Earth (the New Earth), and we will be kings (or governors maybe) over nations and cities, and this will be the ultimate fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding the coming kingdom of the Messiah.


----------



## reformedminister

I was Dispensational Pre-mil the early part of my ministry due to former indoctrination and Seminary training. My thesis I had to right in Seminary was on that position. However, shortly after graduation I came to my senses and took the Scriptures for what I believed they clearly taught. The name for that position was called Amillennialism. Ironically, I also became a Calvinist.


----------



## J. Dean

JM said:


> I moved from Pretrib Premil => Prewrath Premil => Historic Premil => Amil. After being frustrated with doing my best to justify a Premil understanding I set aside the study of eschatology altogether. About a year latter while discussing the Premil coming of Christ with someone I realized the position just didn't make all that much sense.
> 
> jm


 
Yeah, that's pretty much me as well. And since we're not saved by our eschatological stance in this matter, I don't make too much of a a big deal about it, provided I don't run into a militant premil or postmil person.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

DMcFadden said:


> What do Amils have . . . nerdy seminary professors with European family names and a lot of "I don't knows." Man, what a ripoff.





I was a dispo pre-mill. Now I am an Amil. 

For information: there are actually two postmills: the classical version that posit a _future _millennial golden age. And the optimistic amill that confusedly call themselves postmills...


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

Depending on the day I am an optimistic amil or postmil. LOL


----------



## Pilgrim

Bill The Baptist said:


> Gord said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre Mil. Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love Macarthur as much as anyone, but in this area he is a dispensationalist through and through.
Click to expand...


I am premil after having been amil for a good many years. 

It's been a while since I listened to MacArthur's message. I may have forgotten it, but I don't remember if he specifically stated that consistent Calvinists should be _dispensationalists_ or pretrib, although the latter of course are his views. 

His essential point is not new and was basically made by certain Reformed premils in the 19th Century. I'm thinking particularly of Hortaius Bonar's criticism of Patrick Fairbairn's interpretation of OT prophecy, among other things. MacArthur made reference to Bonar in one of the messages (he gave 3 more messages on the subject at Grace Church following the Shepherd's Conference message and I think the Bonar reference was in one of those) and noted that he has always identified more with certain Scottish Presbyterians (a good many of whom were premil by the 19th Century) as opposed to the Continental Reformed, who have typically been as hostile to any form of premillennialism as Lutherans have been. 

As I understand it, MacArthur's basic point relates to unconditional election, with the argument being that if what he sees as the unconditional promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants can be annulled then so can New Covenant promises. 

The idea that there will be a restoration of national Israel (both spiritually and to the land) doesn't necessitate pretribulationism or dispensationalism. (It may not even necessitate premillennialism at all. I think some postmils have believed that or something similar, although it's rarer to come across postmils who believe anything like that today. I think Erroll Hulse may be a contemporary example of a postmil who believes something along those lines.) A lot of older covenant premils like Spurgeon, Bonar and Ryle believed that. 

The first time I read some of J.C. Ryle's writings on prophecy even though I knew that he wasn't dispensational I thought he came across like a dispensationalist with his emphasis on restoration/regathering as well as a future conversion of Israel, but that was largely due to my ignorance of the older premillennialism and my assumption that any talk of a restoration of national Israel, particularly as a national/political entity, was a dispensational distinctive. Here are a couple of excerpts from a couple of Spurgeon sermons that I think may surprise some Spurgeon admirers (as well as those who are only familiar with the Ladd variety of "historic premil") in his ardent belief of a future restoration/regathering as well as a future conversion of the Jews: 



> First, THERE IS TO BE A POLITICAL RESTORATION OF THE JEWS. Israel is now blotted out from the map of nations. Her sons are scattered far and wide. Her daughters mourn beside all the rivers of the earth. Her sacred song is hushed—no king reigns in Jerusalem! She brings forth no governors among her tribes. But she is to be restored! She is to be restored “as from the dead.” When her own sons have given up all hope of her, then is God to appear for her. She is to be reorganized—her scattered bones are to be brought together. There will be a native government again. There will again be the form of a political body.
> A State shall be incorporated and a king shall reign. Israel has now become alienated from her own land. Her sons, though they can never forget the sacred dust of Palestine, yet die at a hopeless distance from her consecrated shores. But it shall not be so forever, for her sons shall
> again rejoice in her—her land shall be called Beulah—for as a young man marries a virgin so shall her sons marry her. “I will place you in your own land,” is God’s promise to them. They shall again walk upon her mountains, shall once more sit under her vines and rejoice under her fig trees! And they are also to be reunited. There shall not be two, nor ten, nor twelve, but one—one Israel praising one God—serving one king and that one King the Son of David, the descended Messiah! They are to have a national prosperity which shall make them famous. No, so glorious shall they be that Egypt and Tyre and Greece and Rome shall all forget their glory in the greater splendor of the throne of David! The day shall yet come when all the high hills shall leap with envy because this is the hill which God has chosen! The time shall come when Zion’s shrine shall again be visited by the constant feet of the pilgrim—when her valleys shall echo with songs and her hilltops shall drop with wine and oil. If there is meaning in words this must be the meaning of this chapter! [Ezekiel 37] I wish never to learn the art of tearing God’s meaning out of His own Words. If there is anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage—a meaning not to be spirited or spiritualized away—it must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israel are to be restored to their own land and that a king is to rule over them. “Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen where they are gone and will gather them on every side and bring them into their own land: and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king to them all. And they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.”


 http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs582.pdf



> The hour is approaching when the tribes shall go up to their own country, when Judea, so long a howling wilderness, shall once more blossom like the rose. Then, if the Temple, itself, is not restored, yet on Zion’s hill shall be raised some Christian building where the chants of solemn praise shall be heard, as of old the Psalms of David were sung
> in the Tabernacle. Not long shall it be before they shall come—shall come from distant lands, wherever they rest or roam. And she who has been the off-scouring of all things, whose name has been a proverb and a byword, shall become the glory of all lands! Dejected Zion shall raise her head, shaking herself from dust, darkness and the dead. Then shall the Lord feed His people and make them and the places round about His hill a blessing. I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews. We do not think enough of it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible, it is this. I imagine that you cannot read the Bible without seeing clearly that there is to be an actual restoration of the children of Israel. “There they shall go up. They shall come with weeping unto Zion and with supplications unto Jerusalem.” May that happy day soon come! For when the Jews are restored, then the fullness of the Gentiles shall be gathered in. And as soon as they return, then Jesus will come upon Mount Zion to reign with His ancients gloriously and the halcyon days of the Millennium shall then dawn. We shall then know every man to be a brother and a friend. Christ shall rule with universal sway!


 http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols1-3/chs28.pdf

I don't see how the above (and many more similar quotes could be provided from Spurgeon and other covenantal premils of his era) is anything other than futuristic premillennialism, which does not necessarily equate with dispensationalism. All dispensationalists are futurists but not all futurists are dispensationalists. (Errol Hulse (and perhaps Iain Murray as well If I recall correctly?) misread the above and some other quotes on the restoration and conversion of the Jews to mean that Spurgeon was a Puritan postmil as he is, but elsewhere Spurgeon makes his premillennialism plain.) 

Historic premillennialism today is largely defined by Ladd's work and as Dennis notes above, hardly differs from amillennialism in many respects. This is particularly so with regard to the interpretation of OT prophecy. In that sense it's really not so "historic" at all.


----------



## Jake Terpstra

Post-Mil


----------



## Peairtach

> As I understand it, MacArthur's basic point relates to unconditional election, with the argument being that if what he sees as the unconditional promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants can be annulled then so can New Covenant promises.
> 
> The idea that there will be a restoration of national Israel (both spiritually and to the land) doesn't necessitate pretribulationism or dispensationalism. (It may not even necessitate premillennialism at all. I think some postmils have believed that or something similar, although it's rarer to come across postmils who believe anything like that today. I think Erroll Hulse may be a contemporary example of a postmil who believes something along those lines.) A lot of older covenant premils like Spurgeon, Bonar and Ryle believed that.



This is all covered by traditional postmillennialism. The Israel of God (Gal 6:16) in the New Covenant is expanded to include both believing Jews and Gentiles (professing Jews and Gentiles and their children in its administration). Most of "Israel-after-the-flesh" has been cut out of the Israel of God apart from a remnant, but the Lord indicates that they are not completely forgotten and will be reingrafted into the Commonwealth of Israel, along with all nations at some point in history (e.g.Rom 11)

The geographical scope of God's Kingdom is also expanded from the Land of Israel at its widest to include not only the Land of Israel but also the whole Earth (e.g. Ps 72).

The Israel of God is to take possession of the Earth - including the Land of Israel-Palestine by the Holy War of evangelisation. At some point "Israel after the flesh" will be reingrafted into the Israel of God.

If God wishes in His providence to permit unbelieving and believing Jews to return to what was once the Holy Land then that is His decretive will. The Jews can only plead general historical and political reasons for their possession of the Land - rather than arguing from the Bible that God gave them everything from the Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt and from the East Bank of the Jordan to the Medi, because their and the land's status has changed in the New Covenant period. 

If most of the Jews in Israel were Christians they would at least be able to say that they had repented, but the arguments about the land shouldn't be conducted on such a basis as it is theologically wrong-headed. The Church is the Israel of God and the whole Earth is the sphere of redemption (e.g. Matt 5:5).

The fact that the Apostle Paul says that the Jews are beloved because they are the offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and because our Lord came from them, implies a general benevolence to them from Christians, but the extreme philosemitism that will not say a bad thing about a Jew or Jews, the Israeli government or army, or the state of Israel, or would posit another way of salvation for the Jews, is excluded along with antisemitism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am Amil.... But let me add this as I have posted this in the other thread. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would say this concerning a few of the differing views you mention in the above. They are not like the PreMil position and have a commonality. They only have the Lord returning physically once and the Lord is reigning and having dominion from heaven till he does return. *The Premil has him returning twice which in my view distorts his work of redemption and the gospel of the Kingdom.* And now, for the rest of the story?



Just my 2 cents. And I think they are pretty big pennies.


----------



## Pilgrim

Richard Tallach said:


> As I understand it, MacArthur's basic point relates to unconditional election, with the argument being that if what he sees as the unconditional promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants can be annulled then so can New Covenant promises.
> 
> The idea that there will be a restoration of national Israel (both spiritually and to the land) doesn't necessitate pretribulationism or dispensationalism. (It may not even necessitate premillennialism at all. I think some postmils have believed that or something similar, although it's rarer to come across postmils who believe anything like that today. I think Erroll Hulse may be a contemporary example of a postmil who believes something along those lines.) A lot of older covenant premils like Spurgeon, Bonar and Ryle believed that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is all covered by traditional postmillennialism. The Israel of God (Gal 6:16) in the New Covenant is expanded to include both believing Jews and Gentiles (professing Jews and Gentiles and their children in its administration).
> 
> The geographical scope of God's Kingdom is also expanded from the Land of Israel at its widest to include not only the Land of Israel but also the whole Earth (e.g. Ps 72).
> 
> The Israel of God is to take possession of the Earth - including the Land of Israel-Palestine by the Holy War of evangelisation. At some point "Israel after the flesh" will be reingrafted into the Israel of God.
Click to expand...


Richard,

This is what I'm increasingly coming to understand, although it is certainly a minority view, especially in the USA. But so is the older historic Premillennialism (as opposed to the Ladd variety) that I've noted here and in other threads. I'm premil based on my study so far and admit that I haven't made an in-depth study of traditional postmillennialism. What books would you recommend I start with in studying this view?

If I were to change, traditional postmillennialism of the type that you've advocated here in your many posts appears to me to be the most viable alternative. As I see it, Christ's Kingdom will have dominion over the whole Earth in space and time. The question is whether it will be premil or postmil. I just can't see it being an entirely heavenly, spiritual thing as has been asserted by some of the amils here and of my acquaintence elsewhere.


----------



## Peairtach

Well Hodge's _Systematic Theology_ is more trad postmil on eschatology.

There is Lorraine Boettner's _The Millennium_ which is an interesting survey from a postmil point of view. I would read this first.

Erroll Hulse's _The Restoration of Israel_ another interesting survey.

David Brown's _Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?_. Nineteenth century postmil.

Iain Murray's _The Puritan Hope_

John Jefferson Davis _Christ's Victorious Kingdom: Postmillennialism Reconsidered_

The amil "argument from suffering" - which seems to be one of their stronger suits - is dealt with in Kenneth L.Gentry's edited symposium _Thine is the Kingdom
_

I tend to look at the eschatalogical question as at a basic level "a process of elimination". For me premil goes against certain basic and clear doctrines from the Gospels and Epistles, like the glorification and superexaltation of Christ (Philippians 2:9) along with others.




> This is what I'm increasingly coming to understand, although it is certainly a minority view, especially in the USA.



This may be partly an over-reaction by amils and some postmils to Dispensational obsession with Israel, the Jews and a naive and unbiblical and unbalanced philosemitism on the part of Dispensationalists.

The Apostle tells us that although the Jews are beloved because of the fathers, for the most part - apart from converted Jews - they are enemies of the Gospel.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Have either of you read Cornelius P. Venema's book?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Gord said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre Mil. Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love Macarthur as much as anyone, but in this area he is a dispensationalist through and through.
Click to expand...

 
Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Osage Bluestem said:


> Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.




There is a significant difference between covenant theology which understands different _administrations_ of the covenant of grace and Dispensationalism (capital 'D')


----------



## Osage Bluestem

kainos01 said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.
Click to expand...

 


That's a pickle isn't it.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Osage Bluestem said:


> Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.



Please tell me humor is involved in this statement.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist



But then again, animal sacrifices will resume according to dispensationalists.


----------



## Manuel

Osage Bluestem said:


> Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.



That is a very confusing statement, what does it mean?


----------



## jayce475

Manuel said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very confusing statement, what does it mean?
Click to expand...


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Manuel said:


> That is a very confusing statement, what does it mean?



Not to put words in David's mouth, but I am assuming that he referring to the discontinuity that exists between the present age and the previous age. I think that all Christians recognize this and this hardly constitutes dispensationalism.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Manuel said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every follower of God not making animal sacrifices is a dispensationalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very confusing statement, what does it mean?
Click to expand...

 
It just means that everyone who has the biblical record and is not making animal sacrifices, testify by their actions that they believe that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time. That is dispensational.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> It just means that everyone who has the biblical record and is not making animal sacrifices, testify by their actions that they believe that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time. That is dispensational.



If only that were true. Unfortuantely, dispensationalism entails much much more than simply recognizing that God deals differently with people today than he used to. At its core, dispensationalism is the unbiblical separation of Israel and the church into two distinct entities with vastly different destinies.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means that everyone who has the biblical record and is not making animal sacrifices, testify by their actions that they believe that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time. That is dispensational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only that were true. Unfortuantely, dispensationalism entails much much more than simply recognizing that God deals differently with people today than he used to. At its core, dispensationalism is the unbiblical separation of Israel and the church into two distinct entities with vastly different destinies.
Click to expand...

 
Just pointing out an area everyone has in common with dispensationalists.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Osage Bluestem said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means that everyone who has the biblical record and is not making animal sacrifices, testify by their actions that they believe that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time. That is dispensational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only that were true. Unfortuantely, dispensationalism entails much much more than simply recognizing that God deals differently with people today than he used to. At its core, dispensationalism is the unbiblical separation of Israel and the church into two distinct entities with vastly different destinies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just pointing out an area everyone has in common with dispensationalists.
Click to expand...


Not really.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> Just pointing out an area everyone has in common with dispensationalists



Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all believe that Christ is the Son of God, however I would not want to be associated with any of them.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just pointing out an area everyone has in common with dispensationalists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all believe that Christ is the Son of God, however I would not want to be associated with any of them.
Click to expand...

 
Those are all heretics. Dispensationalists are christian bretheren, not heretics.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> Those are all heretics. Dispensationalists are christian bretheren, not heretics



I am not the arbiter of all things heretical, so I will reserve judgment on that, but my point is that all "Christians" have some things in common. Just because some aspects of a particular doctrine are correct does not mean that the doctrine as a whole is correct.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all heretics. Dispensationalists are christian bretheren, not heretics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the arbiter of all things heretical, so I will reserve judgment on that, but my point is that all "Christians" have some things in common. Just because some aspects of a particular doctrine are correct does not mean that the doctrine as a whole is correct.
Click to expand...

 
Indeed. However, it is true that we all hold that in common. God has dealt with different people differently at different times.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> Indeed. However, it is true that we all hold that in common. God has dealt with different people differently at different times



I think we all agree on that point. I think the confusion stems from trying to discern your motivation for pointing this out. Are you trying to espouse dispensationalism? Because as I am sure you are aware, that is technically a violation of the LBCF.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

That may be true DD but according to the dipsensationalism that many hold to, Salvation by grace through faith was not always the mode of salvation. For instance I do know that Old Despensatinalism that was taught to me said in the Millennium that salvation was going to be by obeying the Law again. Matthew chapter 5 was not meant for the gentiles. Only the books of the New Testament that addressed the gentiles were relevant for us gentiles. In the Bible's theology salvation is always by grace through faith from the time of the fall till the end. Salvation has always been about about the person and work of Christ as a mediator. Yes, there are periods where God put forth types to point to the antitype, but it has always been about Christ. The Covenants after the fall were always a revelation of Christ and grace. In the dispensationalism I was taught that wasn't true. Even though I disagreed with it from the beginning, I would listen to and read the guys who promoted such theology. I even road the Bible Bus of J. Vernon McGee's 5 year trip. I loved listening to that old dispensationalist Presbyterian. His voice was so cool to me and his desire for the salvation of the Church was very evident. Salvation in dispensationalism is not the same for Isreal and the Gentile Church. And that is very unbiblical. 

Dispensationalist Beliefs – Salvation by William E. Cox

Dispensationalist Beliefs

DD, you really need to spend some time getting to know about this. Please take some time to learn about this.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. However, it is true that we all hold that in common. God has dealt with different people differently at different times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all agree on that point. I think the confusion stems from trying to discern your motivation for pointing this out. Are you trying to espouse dispensationalism? Because as I am sure you are aware, that is technically a violation of the LBCF.
Click to expand...

 
I just thought it was funny. Also technically Macarthurian dispensationalism doesn't contradict the LBCF. It falls nicely under it's umbrella because the LBCF nowhere ways the church IS Israel. The Church is grafted into Israel as the scripture says.

The only exception I take to the LBCF is the observance of sabbath. I am not sabbatarian. I believe we are free in Christ from laws like that. Other than that I'm good to go with it. So, I claim it. At any rate I can pick and choose my confession based on scripture, but I cannot pick and choose scripture. Scripture trumps all confessions in my view.

---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> That may be true DD but according to the dipsensationalism that many hold to, Salvation by grace through faith was not always the mode of salvation. For instance I do know that Old Despensatinalism that was taught to me said in the Millennium that salvation was going to be by obeying the Law again.



Macarthur and Ryrie both flatly contradict that. I don't know about any one else. They both claim that salvation has always been by grace through faith and that in the millennium the law will be obeyed fully by fully sanctified people because the law is good. It is not their salvation it is their way of life. Also Christ will be the high priest presiding over sacrifices that are memorial in nature. Such as today we have the Lord's Supper that looks back at his sacrifice as a symbolic memorial. In the millennium we will have sacrifices in Ezekiel's Temple that look back to Christ's sacrifice as well. It is a celebration of Christ, by Christ, for Christ, to the glory of the Father.




> Salvation in dispensationalism is not the same for Isreal and the Gentile Church. And that is very unbiblical.



From what macarthur and ryrie say all the Jews who deny Christ will go to hell and only those who accept him will be saved. In the end Israel will recognize him and morn as Zechariah says. They will be sorrowful for denying him for thousands of years. But they will be saved. So they have made God so angry that many generations of them will be in hell, but the final generation will look to Christ to be saved. All Jews who accept Christ will be saved all who reject him will perish.



> DD, you really need to spend some time getting to know about this. Please take some time to learn about this.



I'm no expert but I have read a lot on it. Also I have a cousin who is a PHD SBC dispensationalist pastor and professor who is interesting to talk to. Also, I don't realy know how much I know about this. I have a generally low opinion of myself so many times I say I don't know something and it turns out I know a lot more than I thought I did. I just don't know how to measure how much is a lot.


----------



## torstar

I thought I signed up for a Reformed board for which all members promised they were subscribers to an approved Confession, no matter how tenuously it appears that are subscribed.

Why am I being exposed to views of Ryrie and Dispensationalism?

One of the main reasons I came to this board was to get away from this.

I am sure there are plenty of wonderful boards out there that will bicker about Mac and Ryrie and Dispensationalism...


----------



## Osage Bluestem

torstar said:


> I thought I signed up for a Reformed board for which all members promised they were subscribers to an approved Confession, no matter how tenuously it appears that are subscribed.
> 
> Why am I being exposed to views of Ryrie and Dispensationalism?
> 
> One of the main reasons I came to this board was to get away from this.
> 
> I am sure there are plenty of wonderful boards out there that will bicker about Mac and Ryrie and Dispensationalism...


 
Well, it's a thread on Premillenialism and dispensationalism came up and I was just clarifying their positions because I have read them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Osage Bluestem said:


> I just thought it was funny. Also technically Macarthurian dispensationalism doesn't contradict the LBCF. It falls nicely under it's umbrella because the LBCF nowhere ways the church IS Israel. The Church is grafted into Israel as the scripture says.



I have read the book I am going to recommend to you but I don't have a copy to quote from right now. DD you should get this and read this. I don't believe they are compatible. 
MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto - Reformed Baptist Academic Press


----------



## Peairtach

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Have either of you read Cornelius P. Venema's book?



I haven't.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just thought it was funny. Also technically Macarthurian dispensationalism doesn't contradict the LBCF. It falls nicely under it's umbrella because the LBCF nowhere ways the church IS Israel. The Church is grafted into Israel as the scripture says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the book I am going to recommend to you but I don't have a copy to quote from right now. DD you should get this and read this. I don't believe they are compatible.
> MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto - Reformed Baptist Academic Press
Click to expand...

 
Thanks. Looks interesting. That Macarthur sermon at the Shepherds conference was pretty convincing I thought.

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------

[/COLOR]


Richard Tallach said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have either of you read Cornelius P. Venema's book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't.
Click to expand...

 
Me either.


----------



## Pilgrim

*Please Take Another Look--More Study Needed*

David,

MacArthur does not affirm the bicovenantal teaching of the LBCF i.e. the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace. 

Compare this from the LBCF:



> The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, *consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one*, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.


with the following from the statement of faith to which MacArthur subscribes: 



> *We teach that the formation of the church, the Body of Christ,
> began on the Day of Pentecost* (Acts 2:1-21, 38-47) *and will be
> completed at the coming of Christ for His own at the rapture*
> (1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
> *We teach that the church is thus a unique spiritual organism
> designed by Christ, made up of all born-again believers in this present
> age* (Ephesians 2:11-3:6). The church is distinct from Israel
> (1 Corinthians 10:32), a mystery not revealed until this age
> (Ephesians 3:1-6; 5:32).


These two statements are plainly incompatible. The 2nd LBCF does not teach that the church began at Pentecost the way all dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians do. The 2nd LBCF teaches one covenant of grace with two administrations (i.e. beginning in Genesis, not Pentecost) a teaching that is rejected by all dispensationalists (including MacArthur) and New Covenant Theologians. A pre-trib rapture is also incompatible with all historic Baptist confessions, including the 1689. 

See also this recent post by Phil Johnson, MacArthur's editor and I think it's fair to say, right hand man, in which he states that he does not affirm covenant theology. He does however affirm the threefold division of the law, something that the overwheming majority of dispensationalist have rejected (including some at MacArthur's very own Masters Seminary) so that may account for some of the confusion here. Phil (and presumably MacArthur, although after quickly perusing it I didn't find it reflected in Grace Church's doctrinal statement) also affirms the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, a teaching that almost all dispensationalists (at least in my experience) have rejected. These are examples of MacArthur's "leaky dispensationalism." But it is still dispensationalism nonetheless. 

Most evangelicals, including even Calvinistic Southern Baptists, have little or no knowledge or understanding of covenant theology, even the covenant theology affirmed by the founders of the Southern Baptist convention. Most non-dispensational Calvinistic Southern Baptists are closer to NCT than anything else, even if they're not that familiar with the specifics of NCT teaching. (This is a teaching that is almost always amil, but which rejects the bicovenantalism of the 1689 and its teaching on the law.) This would include those who identify strongly with Piper, Schreiner and most if not all of the contributors to the _Believer's Baptism_ book edited by Schreiner and Wright. For a covenantal Baptist perspective, see Fred Malone's book on baptism and the Coxe/Owen volume _Covenant Theology_: _From Adam to Christ_.

I urge you to take Randy's (puritancovenanter's) advice and take some time to study covenant theology much more thoroughly rather than making dogmatic statements the way you have done today that reflect a clear misunderstanding of it. (Historic Premillennialism is not incompatible with covenant theology but dispensationalism is.) If after studying the issue you then continue to affirm MacArthur's dispensationalism then no one here will accuse you of adhering to soul destroying heresy. But that teaching is clearly incompatible with the 1689 and represents a much more radical departure from it than those who cannot fully affirm its teaching on the 4th Commandment but who otherwise affirm its covenantalism.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Pilgrim said:


> David,
> 
> MacArthur does not affirm the bicovenantal teaching of the LBCF i.e. the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Compare this from the LBCF:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, *consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one*, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the following from the statement of faith to which MacArthur subscribes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We teach that the formation of the church, the Body of Christ,
> began on the Day of Pentecost* (Acts 2:1-21, 38-47) *and will be
> completed at the coming of Christ for His own at the rapture*
> (1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
> *We teach that the church is thus a unique spiritual organism
> designed by Christ, made up of all born-again believers in this present
> age* (Ephesians 2:11-3:6). The church is distinct from Israel
> (1 Corinthians 10:32), a mystery not revealed until this age
> (Ephesians 3:1-6; 5:32).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These two statements are plainly incompatible. The LBCF does not teach that the church began at Pentecost the way all dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians do.
> 
> See also this recent post by Phil Johnson, MacArthur's editor and I think it's fair to say, right hand man, in which he states that he does not affirm covenant theology. He does however affirm the threefold division of the law, something that the overwheming majority of dispensationalist have rejected (including some at MacArthur's very own Masters Seminary) so that may account for some of the confusion here.
> 
> Most evangelicals, including even Southern Baptist Calvinists, have little or no knowledge or understanding of covenant theology, even the covenant theology affirmed by the founders of the Southern Baptist convention.
Click to expand...

 
I don't see how they are incompatible at all really. The church is grafted onto Israel but is not Israel. One enters into the Church upon being saved. Eventually Israel will be saved as well. And then the Church and Israel will be as one and all the prohecies wil be fulfilled.

One cannot be in teh church without being saved and all who are saved are in the church however one can be a part of Israel without being saved. HOwever true Israel is all of the saved and that is when Israel "the biological seed of Abraham" will be redeemed. When they accept Christ. Gid is still faithful to them. And will uphold his promises to Abraham.

That is their idea as I understand it


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Osage Bluestem said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just thought it was funny. Also technically Macarthurian dispensationalism doesn't contradict the LBCF. It falls nicely under it's umbrella because the LBCF nowhere ways the church IS Israel. The Church is grafted into Israel as the scripture says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the book I am going to recommend to you but I don't have a copy to quote from right now. DD you should get this and read this. I don't believe they are compatible.
> MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto - Reformed Baptist Academic Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. Looks interesting. That Macarthur sermon at the Shepherds conference was pretty convincing I thought.
Click to expand...


You will see where JM made a lot of blunders in his understanding by reading Dr. Waldron's book.



Osage Bluestem said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have either of you read Cornelius P. Venema's book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me either.
Click to expand...

 
I believe it is one of the best books written on the subject. It is up to date and discusses all the things you guys have mentioned in this thread if I remember correctly. 

See this review.... Banner of Truth Trust General Articles


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Osage Bluestem said:


> I don't see how they are incompatible at all really. The church is grafted onto Israel but is not Israel. One enters into the Church upon being saved. Eventually Israel will be saved as well. And then the Church and Israel will be as one and all the prohecies wil be fulfilled.



You need to read Romans and Ephesians. First off there is a distinction made in Romans concerning Isreal as concerning the flesh and the true Isreal of God. We are not grafted onto but *into* making one man it says. 

Also there are a few threads on this topic.... Here is one....

http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/israel-has-not-been-replaced-church-50717/

Also as Matt has noted somewhere else....


> Stephen in Acts 8 (in the Greek text) uses the word "church" for Moses and the Israelites. The continuity is stressed in what God is doing in Acts.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how they are incompatible at all really. The church is grafted onto Israel but is not Israel. One enters into the Church upon being saved. Eventually Israel will be saved as well. And then the Church and Israel will be as one and all the prohecies wil be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read Romans and Ephesians. First off there is a distinction made in Romans concerning Isreal as concerning the flesh and the true Isreal of God. We are not grafted onto but *into* making one man it says.
> 
> Also there are a few threads on this topic.... Here is one....
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/israel-has-not-been-replaced-church-50717/
> 
> Also as Matt has noted somewhere else....
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen in Acts 8 (in the Greek text) uses the word "church" for Moses and the Israelites. The continuity is stressed in what God is doing in Acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Paul was just talking about salvation of souls. There is still national Israel that is unsaved that God is eventually going to save as soon as he is finished pouring his wrath out on them.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> Paul was just talking about salvation of souls. There is still national Israel that is unsaved that God is eventually going to save as soon as he is finished pouring his wrath out on them



One thing that is important to understand is that God elected Israel as a nation only in the sense that his people would come from that nation, and not in the sense that EVERY person from that nation would be saved. If that were the case, then Ismael and Esau would also be saved. That is Paul's core argument in Romans 9. Paul is answering the logical question which is, if God made all these promises to Israel and God doesn't go back on his promises, then how do explain the current state of Israel? Paul's answer is that not all that are the seed of Abraham are really Israel, meaning that God has elected certain individuals from national Israel, just as he now has from amongst the Gentiles, but this should not be taken to mean that every Jew throughout history will be in heaven.


----------



## Pilgrim

Osage Bluestem said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> MacArthur does not affirm the bicovenantal teaching of the LBCF i.e. the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Compare this from the LBCF:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, *consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one*, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
> 
> 
> 
> With the following from the statement of faith to which MacArthur subscribes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We teach that the formation of the church, the Body of Christ,
> began on the Day of Pentecost* (Acts 2:1-21, 38-47) *and will be
> completed at the coming of Christ for His own at the rapture*
> (1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
> *We teach that the church is thus a unique spiritual organism
> designed by Christ, made up of all born-again believers in this present
> age* (Ephesians 2:11-3:6). The church is distinct from Israel
> (1 Corinthians 10:32), a mystery not revealed until this age
> (Ephesians 3:1-6; 5:32).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These two statements are plainly incompatible. The LBCF does not teach that the church began at Pentecost the way all dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians do.
> 
> See also this recent post by Phil Johnson, MacArthur's editor and I think it's fair to say, right hand man, in which he states that he does not affirm covenant theology. He does however affirm the threefold division of the law, something that the overwheming majority of dispensationalist have rejected (including some at MacArthur's very own Masters Seminary) so that may account for some of the confusion here.
> 
> Most evangelicals, including even Southern Baptist Calvinists, have little or no knowledge or understanding of covenant theology, even the covenant theology affirmed by the founders of the Southern Baptist convention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how they are incompatible at all really. The church is grafted onto Israel but is not Israel. One enters into the Church upon being saved. Eventually Israel will be saved as well. And then the Church and Israel will be as one and all the prohecies wil be fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthur teaches that the church consists only of those who are saved between Pentecost and the rapture aka "the Church age."
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> One cannot be in teh church without being saved and all who are saved are in the church however one can be a part of Israel without being saved. HOwever true Israel is all of the saved and that is when Israel "the biological seed of Abraham" will be redeemed. When they accept Christ. Gid is still faithful to them. And will uphold his promises to Abraham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the statement carefully. Unlike the 1689 it does not say that all who are saved are in the church but limits it to those who are saved between Pentecost and the Rapture. The Grace Church article on Last Things makes a distinction between the Church, Israel and the tribulation saints that includes a resurrection for the Church (and translation or rapture of living believers) prior to the tribulation and a separate resurrection of the OT saints and the tribulation saints during the tribulation. Edit: It teaches the resurrection of the OT saints and the tribulation saints at the Second Coming but it has this under the heading of the Tribulation, which is confusing.
> 
> You don't have to be a dispensationalist to affirm the restoration and conversion of the Jews. Some forms of classic postmillennialism (as noted previously by Richard Tallach) as well as the covenantal premillenialism of men like Spurgeon and Bonar affirm this. But they deny separate resurrections for the church and believing Israel and the tribulation saints.
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Osage Bluestem said:


> Paul was just talking about salvation of souls. There is still national Israel that is unsaved that God is eventually going to save as soon as he is finished pouring his wrath out on them.



Not all of Isreal was Isreal is a statement Paul made concerning OT Isreal. Yes, he is speaking in the same line as he did in Galatians also concerning who was the true seed of Abraham. You are not answering my assertions btw. According to Stephen the Old Testament Covenant People are also the Church. One man, One tree, One Covenant of Grace. Grafting into and not onto. I have no problem with God converting the Jews and grafting the physical seed of Jews as a Nation back into him. Some think this reengrafting will not just include the Nation but that they will be grafted back into the Covenant of Grace through the atoning work of Christ along with the whole world. But it won't be done outside of that One Covenant of Grace as some think it will pertaining back to the law of Moses. Take your time and listen to what is being said. Read the things we ask for you to interact with.

As I mentioned previously this has to do with the gospel of the Kingdom and what that is. There are tenents that distort it to an unbiblical portion.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul was just talking about salvation of souls. There is still national Israel that is unsaved that God is eventually going to save as soon as he is finished pouring his wrath out on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of Isreal was Isreal is a statement Paul made concerning OT Isreal. Yes, he is speaking in the same line as he did in Galatians also concerning who was the true seed of Abraham. You are not answering my assertions btw. According to Stephen the Old Testament Covenant People are also the Church. One man, One tree, One Covenant of Grace. Grafting into and not onto. I have no problem with God converting the Jews and grafting the physical seed of Jews as a Nation back into him. Some think this reengrafting will not just include the Nation but that they will be grafted back into the Covenant of Grace through the atoning work of Christ along with the whole world. But it won't be done outside of that One Covenant of Grace as some think it will pertaining back to the law of Moses. Take your time and listen to what is being said. Read the things we ask for you to interact with.
> 
> As I mentioned previously this has to do with the gospel of the Kingdom and what that is. There are tenents that distort it to an unbiblical portion.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks Randy. This is a fun topic to read about. I look forward to reading as much as the Lord allows me.


----------



## Esther W.

Osage Bluestem said:


> Wow! Only 2 premillennial people on the whole board after two days of this thread being open!
> 
> If I had known that I would have never posted a thread asking for premillennial resources. I apologize. I didn't know ya'll were so anti premill. I certainly wasn't trying to start a stink. I honestly thought there were a lot of premil people here as well as the other views.
> 
> This is obviously not a forum for me to discuss eschatology in so I will refrain from that forever more on the PB and stick to things we have in common. I am interested in eschatology so I will discuss it in other places with premillennial people so I can grow in that area though.



You might find this informative- It's a lecture series on the 3 views. Historic Premillenialism: Postmillennialism: Amillennialism:


----------



## Notthemama1984

Osage Bluestem said:


> I don't see how they are incompatible at all really. The church is grafted onto Israel but is not Israel.



Dispensationalism denies this. They state that Israel and the Church are completely separate. They are not grafted together. Dispensationalists will even state that the church is not a part of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is given to Israel. The church simply benefits from it, but is not an actual part of it. 

Dispensationalism and any of the Reformed Confessions are incompatible.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Chaplainintraining said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how they are incompatible at all really. The church is grafted onto Israel but is not Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dispensationalism denies this. They state that Israel and the Church are completely separate. They are not grafted together. Dispensationalists will even state that the church is not a part of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is given to Israel. The church simply benefits from it, but is not an actual part of it.
> 
> Dispensationalism and any of the Reformed Confessions are incompatible.
Click to expand...

 
It seems to me that there are a lot of different opinions that all call themselves "dispensational." However Ryrie and Macarthur both acknowledge Romans 11

To me Ryrie is dispensational heavy and Macarthur is dispensational light. 

Wolvoord and Criswell seem to be middle road.

Darby and Scofield are dispensationalism early. 

There are many others who claim many things but what you guys are generally referring to is hyper dispensationalism. You do them the same way non calvinists do us when they take what the hypers have said and pin us all with it.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Osage Bluestem said:


> There are many others who claim many things but what you guys are generally referring to is hyper dispensationalism. You do them the same way non calvinists do us when they take what the hypers have said and pin us all with it.



Actually I am not referring to hyper dispensationalism. I attend DTS which is the home of all things dispensationalism. I have had to read Ryrie's book three different times now. I think I know what I am talking about when I say that they do not see the church grafted into Israel.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Chaplainintraining said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many others who claim many things but what you guys are generally referring to is hyper dispensationalism. You do them the same way non calvinists do us when they take what the hypers have said and pin us all with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am not referring to hyper dispensationalism. I attend DTS which is the home of all things dispensationalism. I have had to read Ryrie's book three different times now. I think I know what I am talking about when I say that they do not see the church grafted into Israel.
Click to expand...


Why are you attending DTS if you despise their views?

Edit: Indeed Ryrie does contend the view. I remember it from his book but it is in the context of progressive dispensationalism which ryrie thinks is too soft. Ryrie is heavy Dispensational.


----------



## Pilgrim

Osage Bluestem said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how they are incompatible at all really. The church is grafted onto Israel but is not Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dispensationalism denies this. They state that Israel and the Church are completely separate. They are not grafted together. Dispensationalists will even state that the church is not a part of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is given to Israel. The church simply benefits from it, but is not an actual part of it.
> 
> Dispensationalism and any of the Reformed Confessions are incompatible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are a lot of different opinions that all call themselves "dispensational." However Ryrie and Macarthur both acknowledge Romans 11
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is some truth in this. Now that the hegemony of the Old Scofield Reference Bible has been broken and especially with the development of progressive dispensationalism, I don't think you can say there's much more agreement about what dispensationalism is than there is about what constitutes evangelicalism or fundamentalism today. You also see this with those who refer to themselves as Reformed even though they reject wide swaths of what the Reformed have historically taught.
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me Ryrie is dispensational heavy and Macarthur is dispensational light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, there is some truth in this, but the main difference with regard to eschatology (as opposed to the Lordship debate) now that Ryrie has abandoned the idea of two new covenants (one for Israel and one for the church) is that MacArthur doesn't emphasize seven dispensations and that MacArthur may not emphasize an offer of the kingdom to the Jews in the Gospels. (I've never seen him say anything one way or another on an offer of the kingdom, but I haven't listened to every sermon or read every commentary either.) But their basic conclusions otherwise are quite similar, especially on the issues related to the church/Israel distinction I noted above with the comparison of MacArthur and the 1689, which I note that you have not responded to.
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wolvoord and Criswell seem to be middle road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While they may not have agreed on everything (and who does agree with another theologian 100% of the time?) I don't think there could be said to be significant differences between Walvoord and Ryrie. They are both representatives of Revised or Normative dispensationalism, which is the middle stage of the development of dispensationalism, coming between the classic and progressive eras and is reflected in Ryrie's _Dispensationalism Today_, the Ryrie Study Bible and The New Scofield Reference Bible (1967) and also the Scofield III which has the same notes. Walvoord was one of the editors of the Revised Scofield. Although I don't have a Ryrie Study Bible, I doubt you'll find much difference between the theology of the New Scofield/Scofield III and the Ryrie Study Bible.
> 
> As for Criswell, he lived down the street from Dallas Seminary (DTS) and seems to have been significantly influenced by it with regard to their eschatology and perhaps also their soteriology, which at that time in particular was sort of a 4 point Amryaldian view. He certainly wouldn't have learned dispensationalism at Southern Seminary in that day. The main difference may have been that along with most Baptists, Criswell probably taught that tithing was still obligatory and he may have held to more of a lordship stance as opposed to the Chaferian free grace teaching. (One way or another, I understand that Criswell College was more of that persuasion than DTS.)
> 
> In Criswell's day, conservatism in the Southern Baptist Convention (e.g. affirming inerrancy, etc.) was practically synonymous with premillennialism and with dispensationalism in particular. The main differences with the Dallas Dispensationalists would be over polity (with Dallas teaching plural eldership) as well as Dallas Seminary being generally more Calvinistic than most Southern Baptists of that era. Criswell was more Calvinistic than most of his fellow Conservative Resurgence colleagues and proteges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darby and Scofield are dispensationalism early.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, along with Chafer, Arno Gaebelein, Ironside, Larkin and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many others who claim many things but what you guys are generally referring to is hyper dispensationalism. You do them the same way non calvinists do us when they take what the hypers have said and pin us all with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you please be more specific and state which posters have in your judgment referred to hyper dispensationalism?
> 
> It is true that some adherents of covenant theology and some nondispensationalists in general have been guilty of misrepresentation and/or uncharitable readings at times, particularly assuming that all dispensationalists agree with everything in the Old Scofield or Chafer's Systematic or the no-lordship teaching regarding discipleship and sanctification. But from what I've seen, nobody in this thread has posted anything related to hyper or ultra dispensationalism, which typically posits that the church didn't begin until Paul's ministry and thus various times after Pentecost in Acts (if not the pastoral epistles!) among other errors. Also, I don't recall anyone even posting anything about two ways of salvation, which Scofield and especially Chafer often appeared to suggest, a result of imposing their seven dispensation scheme upon the scriptures instead of.....reading the scriptures in their plain sense!
Click to expand...


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Pilgrim said:


> Could you please be more specific and state which posters have in your judgment referred to hyper dispensationalism?



I don't know. The ones who said that they teach other ways of salvation than grace by faith. I go to church with a few Dispensationalists and they all teach grace by faith. So does Ryrie and Macarthur in all cases.


----------



## Pilgrim

Osage Bluestem said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please be more specific and state which posters have in your judgment referred to hyper dispensationalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. The ones who said that they teach other ways of salvation than grace by faith. I go to church with a few Dispensationalists and they all teach grace by faith. So does Ryrie and Macarthur in all cases.
Click to expand...


While teaching different ways of salvation is prevalent among hyper dispensationalists, strictly speaking, suggesting that the condition of salvation during the age of law (between Sinai and the age of grace or church age) was by keeping the law is not a distinctive of hyper dispensationalism but was a characteristic of at least some Classic Dispensational teachers, including the most prominent ones. (However, I'm not very familiar with Darby's teaching and don't know if he taught that.) This is one of the primary reasons why Chafer's teaching was ruled unconfessional by the PCUS in 1944, along with his rejection of covenant theology. But even Scofield and Chafer elsewhere would state that salvation was by grace through faith. 

Ryrie indeed teaches that salvation is by grace alone through Christ alone, but his revision to Scofield's and Chafer's "unguarded statements" (Ryrie's term) about the salvation of the OT saints in _Dispensationalism Today _was that the content of faith was different in different dispensations. I think it would be an understatement to say that Reformed people would object to that idea.


----------



## Peairtach

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just thought it was funny. Also technically Macarthurian dispensationalism doesn't contradict the LBCF. It falls nicely under it's umbrella because the LBCF nowhere ways the church IS Israel. The Church is grafted into Israel as the scripture says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the book I am going to recommend to you but I don't have a copy to quote from right now. DD you should get this and read this. I don't believe they are compatible.
> MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto - Reformed Baptist Academic Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. Looks interesting. That Macarthur sermon at the Shepherds conference was pretty convincing I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will see where JM made a lot of blunders in his understanding by reading Dr. Waldron's book.
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have either of you read Cornelius P. Venema's book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe it is one of the best books written on the subject. It is up to date and discusses all the things you guys have mentioned in this thread if I remember correctly.
> 
> See this review.... Banner of Truth Trust General Articles
Click to expand...

 
I'll check it out. I could do with reading some more amil stuff. I read quite a bit of William Cox years ago.

I find amil much more theologically coherent than premil, but there are certain Scriptural things that are missed out of amil that postmil covers.


----------



## DMcFadden

kainos01 said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Among the NT scholarly fraternity, premils often say that the "only reason" they continue to be premil is the difficulty of reading Rev. 30 otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Revelation 30 has always proved a bit tricky exegetically . . .
Click to expand...

 
OK, OK, slip of the keyboard. Rev 20 smarty pants!


----------



## Pilgrim

*Time to give it a rest for a while?*

David, 

I would imagine that your continued hammering away here is beginning to try the patience of the moderators. 

Generally speaking, I have more agreement with you than almost anyone who has posted in this thread. The exception may be one or more Bible Presbyterians that have weighed in. But I'm not going to spend much more time coming up with lengthy posts in response to your questions and assertions that for the most part you have not responded to in any detail. 

You have asked why MacArthur's dispensationalism is considered unconfessional and the question has been repeatedly answered. Yet you continue to essentially post the same thing over and over again. I don't think it's unfair to state that your response to my pointing out the difference between the 1689's teaching on the church and MacArthur's teaching practically amounted to arguing that black is white and white is black. 

By your own admission you have much to learn on this issue. Why not sit back and take this all in? No doubt some of the posts are more helpful than others. Why not read some of the books that have been suggested along with the many articles and online books that I linked yesterday? Why not watch and learn for a while instead of making dogmatic assertions that are contrary to the confessional basis (the 1689 in your case) of this board? You asked for premil resources and they have been provided. 

Asking questions is welcomed here. That's one of the main uses of this board. Making dogmatic assertions of doctrines that are contrary to confessional Reformed theology is not. 

I don't think anyone here is looking to administer a cyber beat down. But unless things have changed around here since I was a moderator a few years ago, repeated posting of a doctrine that is as inimical to the Reformed confessions as dispensationalism is (even of the "leaky" MacArthur variety) is not going to be tolerated.

Some may not like what they might perceive as the overly strict confessionalism of the PuritanBoard. But I can tell you from experience with other boards and groups that this place would be a zoo without it.


----------



## Peairtach

OT Israel is the childhood Israel, the childhood Church, and the OT state of Israel was the childhood typological Kingdom of God.

The NT Church is the adult Israel (distinguished from Israel after the flesh as "the Israel of God", Gal 6:16, i.e. "the Israel that belongs to God") and the adult Church.

The whole Cosmos is the Kingdom. 



> 1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.(Gal 4:1-5, ESV)



Most of the Jews have been cut out of the Israel of God, but the Jews haven't been utterly forgotten because of the covenant with the fathers and because Christ is a Jew:

(a)The Jews weren't completely wiped out in AD 70 nor in e.g. the Holocaust.

(b) There is still a remnant of Jews in the Israel of God and always has been.

(c) The Jewish people will be largely reingrafted into the Israel of God in history at some point.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thank You Chris.

Take heed David. Chris is correct. http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/what-your-millennial-position-67521/index3.html#post868338


----------



## Esther W.

Pilgrim said:


> David,
> 
> I would imagine that your continued hammering away here is beginning to try the patience of the moderators.
> 
> Generally speaking, I have more agreement with you than almost anyone who has posted in this thread. The exception may be one or more Bible Presbyterians that have weighed in. But I'm not going to spend much more time coming up with lengthy posts in response to your questions and assertions that for the most part you have not responded to in any detail.
> 
> You have asked why MacArthur's dispensationalism is considered unconfessional and the question has been repeatedly answered. Yet you continue to essentially post the same thing over and over again. I don't think it's unfair to state that your response to my pointing out the difference between the 1689's teaching on the church and MacArthur's teaching practically amounted to arguing that black is white and white is black.
> 
> By your own admission you have much to learn on this issue. Why not sit back and take this all in? No doubt some of the posts are more helpful than others. Why not read some of the books that have been suggested along with the many articles and online books that I linked yesterday? Why not watch and learn for a while instead of making dogmatic assertions that are contrary to the confessional basis (the 1689 in your case) of this board? You asked for premil resources and they have been provided.
> 
> Asking questions is welcomed here. That's one of the main uses of this board. Making dogmatic assertions of doctrines that are contrary to confessional Reformed theology is not.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is looking to administer a cyber beat down. But unless things have changed around here since I was a moderator a few years ago, repeated posting of a doctrine that is as inimical to the Reformed confessions as dispensationalism is (even of the "leaky" MacArthur variety) is not going to be tolerated.
> 
> Some may not like what they might perceive as the overly strict confessionalism of the PuritanBoard. * But I can tell you from experience with other boards and groups that this place would be a zoo without it*.




Because of my own personal experience I can wholeheartedly offer an amen to this


----------



## Notthemama1984

Pilgrim said:


> Some may not like what they might perceive as the overly strict confessionalism of the PuritanBoard. But I can tell you from experience with other boards and groups that this place would be a zoo without it.



I will be honest that I bucked the idea when I first joined the board, but I have come to appreciate the work the moderators do.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Pilgrim said:


> David,
> 
> I would imagine that your continued hammering away here is beginning to try the patience of the moderators.
> 
> Generally speaking, I have more agreement with you than almost anyone who has posted in this thread. The exception may be one or more Bible Presbyterians that have weighed in. But I'm not going to spend much more time coming up with lengthy posts in response to your questions and assertions that for the most part you have not responded to in any detail.
> 
> You have asked why MacArthur's dispensationalism is considered unconfessional and the question has been repeatedly answered. Yet you continue to essentially post the same thing over and over again. I don't think it's unfair to state that your response to my pointing out the difference between the 1689's teaching on the church and MacArthur's teaching practically amounted to arguing that black is white and white is black.
> 
> By your own admission you have much to learn on this issue. Why not sit back and take this all in? No doubt some of the posts are more helpful than others. Why not read some of the books that have been suggested along with the many articles and online books that I linked yesterday? Why not watch and learn for a while instead of making dogmatic assertions that are contrary to the confessional basis (the 1689 in your case) of this board? You asked for premil resources and they have been provided.
> 
> Asking questions is welcomed here. That's one of the main uses of this board. Making dogmatic assertions of doctrines that are contrary to confessional Reformed theology is not.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is looking to administer a cyber beat down. But unless things have changed around here since I was a moderator a few years ago, repeated posting of a doctrine that is as inimical to the Reformed confessions as dispensationalism is (even of the "leaky" MacArthur variety) is not going to be tolerated.
> 
> Some may not like what they might perceive as the overly strict confessionalism of the PuritanBoard. But I can tell you from experience with other boards and groups that this place would be a zoo without it.


 
I'm done.


----------



## au5t1n

Just a point of clarification: The Church is not grafted into Israel. The Church was never grafted into anything. _Believing Gentiles_ were grafted into the Church/Israel.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

austinww said:


> Just a point of clarification: The Church is not grafted into Israel. The Church was never grafted into anything. _Believing Gentiles_ were grafted into the Church/Israel.



Yep. You are correct. Give that man a Havana!


----------



## BlackCalvinist

*sigh*

Historic premill with a mostly amill understanding of the rest of scripture...probably. The hermeneutics are the same for both positions and the only thing that makes someone flip one way or the other is if they make an exception for what 'came to life' means in Rev. 20 (when everywhere else, it speaks of physical resurrection).


----------



## Manuel

Osage Bluestem said:


> It just means that everyone who has the biblical record and is not making animal sacrifices, testify by their actions that they believe that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time. That is dispensational.


Believing in dispensations doesn't make you a dispensationalist any more than believing in baptism makes you a baptist. The word "dispensation" is in the Bible, but simply believing that God has dealt with people differently at different points in time is not enough to make one a dispensationalist; there are other basic distinctives of dispensational theology.


----------



## Peairtach

austinww said:


> Just a point of clarification: The Church is not grafted into Israel. The Church was never grafted into anything. _Believing Gentiles_ were grafted into the Church/Israel.



Good and important correction.

All nations are in the process of being incorporated into the Commonwealth of Israel (the Church) without having to become Jews in the process.

We see the beginnings of the New Covenant phase of this at Pentecost.

Since AD 70 the whole World, including Israel-Palestine, is God's Land, with no sacramental distinctions.

The Jews must, if they are being biblical, argue their case for their presence in Israel-Palestine on other grounds than "God gave us this Land in perpetuity". The Land issue has been transformed in the New Covenant era, along with the status of Israel-after-the-flesh.

I'm sure that they have good grounds, just as the Scots have for being in Scotland and the Americans have for being in the USA.


----------



## dudley

A-Millenial

I believe that the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 is a symbolic number, not a literal description; that the millennium has already begun and is identical with the current church age.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

It's interesting how all the premill (even historic ones) tend to not say anything in threads like these for fear of being attacked alongside of the dispensational premill folks.

Just an observation (dating from 2004 forward).


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BlackCalvinist said:


> It's interesting how all the premill (even historic ones) tend to not say anything in threads like these for fear of being attacked alongside of the dispensational premill folks.
> 
> Just an observation (dating from 2004 forward).



Kind of like how we Baptists tend to remain silent when the topic is baptism.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Bill The Baptist said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how all the premill (even historic ones) tend to not say anything in threads like these for fear of being attacked alongside of the dispensational premill folks.
> 
> Just an observation (dating from 2004 forward).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like how we Baptists tend to remain silent when the topic is baptism.
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## tman

I have no idea. I just want to be with Christ.


----------

