tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127463054772667854.post8304366583239319303..comments2022-05-31T12:57:07.455-05:00Comments on By His Grace and For His Glory: MacArthur's DispensationalismDale Crawfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02513337455078690085noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127463054772667854.post-50187836681783633792013-07-10T13:59:39.338-05:002013-07-10T13:59:39.338-05:00Thanks for your comment Elias,
The point of the l...Thanks for your comment Elias,<br /><br />The point of the last paragraph was that MacArthur insists that the OT promises must be fulfilled literally with ETHNIC ISRAEL. You would never come to this position if you read the NT literally, for example Gal. 6:16. Gal. 6:16 isn't saying that the church has replaced Israel. It is saying the church IS Israel. It is the "new creation" that distinguishes the people of God, not "circumcision" (which distinguished ethnic Israel - see also Gal. 5:6). God has always had but one people, the children of promise (Rom. 9:8), the elect of God, saved by belief in the promise of God fulfilled and accomplished in Jesus Christ, and who find their expression in the church of Christ, the true Israel of God. Dale Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02513337455078690085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127463054772667854.post-88695987850750762642013-07-10T12:51:48.343-05:002013-07-10T12:51:48.343-05:00I have to disagree with your last paragraph. We al...I have to disagree with your last paragraph. We all carry presuppositions when we approach the Bible. By definition, a believer is one with eyes and ears (Prov. 20:12) are opened by the Spirit that we are able to confidently presuppose that the Word of God is infallible and sufficient.<br /><br />Now, moving from <i>that</i> presupposition, you are incorrect in stating that "MacArthur 'presupposes' that OT covenants has to be fulfilled literally in the NT". That is not a presupposition. MacArthur's only presupposition is that the Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). He moves from that and trying to stay as Biblically-consistent as possible, he comes to his "leaky dispensational" eschatological position.<br /><br />You do the exact same thing when you come to a Covenantal position.<br /><br />Or let me put it another way--if you are claiming MacArthur's eschatological position comes merely from a baseless presupposition that God must fulfill his OT promises literally, aren't you coming to your Covenantal perspective by making a baseless presupposition that God must NOT fulfill his OT promises, literally?<br /><br />I hope I wrote this clearly and it will help sharpen both of us.Eliasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127463054772667854.post-33246489471283646862013-07-01T14:38:22.242-05:002013-07-01T14:38:22.242-05:00To the OP. I get all those years attending the Exp...To the OP. I get all those years attending the Expositor's Conference and you don't know that Steve Lawson is himself a dispensationalist (futurist premill)?<br /><br />As for your post - and without getting too much into it - it seems to me that you are blaming MacArthur for being consistent with his futurist premill beliefs. Would you rather have been him being inconsistent? That's very strange, and you can see my point, hopefully.<br /><br />My last comment. You raise a strawman, a common fallacy. Since when the majority is right? Saying that dispensationalism is wrong just because a minority of calvinists believe and teaches it is a fallacy.<br /><br />E.Elaine Bittencourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09918056018284532138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127463054772667854.post-49830941338540530992013-03-04T04:51:07.039-06:002013-03-04T04:51:07.039-06:00Thanks for you post Rocky2
For clarity on the sub...Thanks for you post Rocky2<br /><br />For clarity on the subject see Kim Riddlebarger's book, "A Case for Amillennialism." A brief review from From the CVBBS website: "In a clear and accessible manner, Kim Riddlebarger presents and defends amillennialism as the historic Protestant understanding of the millennial age. Amillennarians believe that the millennium is a present reality centered in Christ's heavenly reign, not a future hope of Christ's rule on earth after his return. Recognizing that eschatology-the study of future things-is a complicated and controversial subject, Riddlebarger begins with definitions of key terminology and an overview of various viewpoints and related biblical themes. He then discusses key passages of Scripture that bear upon the millennial age, including Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Romans 11, and Revelation 20. Finally, he evaluates the main problems facing each of the major millennial positions (dispensational premillennialism, historic premillennialism, postmillennialism, and preterism) and cautions readers to be aware of the consequences of each view."Dale Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02513337455078690085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127463054772667854.post-49793084639546794122013-03-04T02:39:57.268-06:002013-03-04T02:39:57.268-06:00/ Great blog, Dale. Saw this on the web. Any respo.../ Great blog, Dale. Saw this on the web. Any response? / <br /><br />Margaret Macdonald's Rapture Chart !<br /><br /> "church" RAPTURE "church"<br />(present age) (tribulation)<br /><br /><br /> In early 1830 Margaret was the very first one to see a pre-Antichrist (pretrib) rapture in the Bible - and John Walvoord and Hal Lindsey lend support for this claim!<br /> Walvoord's "Rapture Question" (1979) says her view resembles the "partial-rapture view" and Lindsey's "The Rapture" (1983) admits that "she definitely teaches a partial rapture."<br /> But there's more. Lindsey (p. 26) says that partial rapturists see only "spiritual" Christians in the rapture and "unspiritual" ones left behind to endure Antichrist's trial. And Walvoord (p. 97) calls partial rapturists "pretribulationists"!<br /> Margaret's pretrib view was a partial rapture form of it since only those "filled with the Spirit" would be raptured before the revealing of the Antichrist. A few critics, who've been repeating more than researching, have noted "Church" in the tribulation section of her account. Since they haven't known that all partial rapturists see "Church" on earth after their pretrib rapture (see above chart), they've wrongly assumed that Margaret was a posttrib!<br /> In Sep. 1830 Edward Irving's journal "The Morning Watch" (hereafter: TMW) was the first to publicly reflect her novel view when it saw spiritual "Philadelphia" raptured before "the great tribulation" and unspiritual "Laodicea" left on earth.<br /> In Dec. 1830 John Darby (the so-called "father of dispensationalism" even though he wasn't first on any crucial aspect of it!) was still defending the historic posttrib rapture view in the "Christian Herald."<br /> Pretrib didn't spring from a "church/Israel" dichotomy, as many have assumed, but sprang from a "church/church" one, as we've seen, and was based only on symbols!<br /> But innate anti-Jewishness soon appeared. (As noted, TMW in Sep. 1830 saw only less worthy church members left behind.) In Sep. 1832 TMW said that less worthy church members and "Jews" would be left behind. But by Mar. 1833 TMW was sure that only "Jews" would face the Antichrist!<br /> As late as 1837 the non-dichotomous Darby saw the church "going in with Him to the marriage, to wit, with Jerusalem and the Jews." And he didn't clearly teach pretrib until 1839. His basis then was the Rev. 12:5 "man child...caught up" symbol he'd "borrowed" (without giving credit) from Irving who had been the first to use it for the same purpose in 1831!<br /> For related articles Google "X-Raying Margaret," "Edward Irving is Unnerving," "Pretrib Rapture's Missing Lines," "The Unoriginal John Darby," "Deceiving and Being Deceived" by D.M., "Pretrib Rapture Pride," "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" and "Scholars Weigh My Research." The most documented and accurate book on pretrib rapture history is "The Rapture Plot" (see Armageddon Books online) - a 300-pager that has hundreds of disarming facts (like the ones above) not found in any other source.Rocky2https://www.blogger.com/profile/04154389992453412024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5127463054772667854.post-56313205848185153752012-10-22T16:27:32.718-05:002012-10-22T16:27:32.718-05:00Dale,
Good article. I agree with your points. Dr....Dale, <br />Good article. I agree with your points. Dr. MacArthur's excellent exposition of the text was needlessly hampered by his limitation of its application to Israel's future. <br /><br />The main thing that turned me from being a Dispensationalist was seeing how the New Testament writers used the Old Testament. They did not write like Dispensationalists. <br />Tony HicksTonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08208975547086821439noreply@blogger.com