John MacArthur claims "no allegories in Scripture" - dispensationalist delusions

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
581
319
63
Do you believe ALL believers must "die" (necessitating a "resurrection") BEFORE He comes/returns/His Second Coming? (since "death" is totally defeated at that time [according to your understanding of 1Cor15:24, not mine ;) ], and it seems you are suggesting that in order for it to be "defeated" it must have been "experienced" [/actualized] in time/history, at some point, for any and all believers)

My view, as you may recall, is that "[bodily] resurrection [from the dead]" will not be experienced by those not having actually DIED, and that "resurrection" (except for those passages referring to "Israel" coming up out of the "graveyard of nations"--so not being 'a bodily resurrection from being formerly-physically dead,' there) ['resurrection'] means "to stand again [on the earth]" and pertains to "formerly-physically-DEAD" people [/saints, in the "resurrection OF LIFE" of course]; yet 1Cor15:51-54 is saying that both "the DEAD IN Christ," AND the "we [in Christ] which are ALIVE and remain unto" is who [in this "I tell you a mystery" section] that this "death is swallowed up in victory" applies to [not that it is the only (singular) point in time that "bodily resurrection from being formerly-dead" will take place, in the chronology that is revealed in Scripture], meaning, both of the "still-ALIVE" and the "having-previously-DIED" believers. [2Cor5:3-4 is speaking SOLELY of those "STILL-ALIVE" portion of "the Church which is His body [/believers]" as THAT is the focus of Paul's thought in those 2 verses]

As far as it not being the ONLY point-in-time of the chronology laid out in Scripture, I ask you to consider a post I made some time back (in the context of a different convo), essentially making two points about the "ORDER/SEQUENCE" of "resurrection" (meaning, that there doesn't remain only ONE)...

Consider:

[quoting my old post]

"[again, my viewpoint: "[re: resurrection] but each [G1538 - Hekastos - [defined as-->] 'each (of more than two)'] IN HIS OWN ORDER" 1Cor15:23; "blessed and holy is the one having A PART [G3313 - meros] in the first resurrection" Rev20:6... that is, in "the resurrection OF LIFE" Jn5:29--The 2W are included in this "resurrection OF LIFE" but are seen to be resurrected and ascended up to Heaven BEFORE the 7th Trumpet sounds (and so is "the Church which is His body" even earlier than that point in the chronology, which is what 1Cor15:51-54 is making a point to say, not to mention the "chronology/sequence" explanations found in passages such as 1Th and 2Th, and 2Tim4:8/Rev4:4/Rev5:9/Eph4:30, pertaining to same)]"

[end quoting my post]


There's more I could say, but this post is already long enough... :)
No, I don't think all believers will experience physical death. Some will be instantaneously glorified without experiencing it. I believe Scriptures relating to this are commonly misinterpreted as referring to the "rapture".

Here's my point: death is defeated at the resurrection of believers, which occurs at Christ's return. If an individual is already dead, they will be resurrected and glorified. If an individual is alive, they will be glorified without a resurrection, because it isn't needed. There is no more death at this time, so a Millennial scenario where individuals die, such as with their final battle at the end of the Millennium, is absurd. Death is defeated when Christ is returned.

Regarding "first resurrection", I believe it is a parallel phrase with "second death". Either one experiences a resurrection to glory, which is connected with Jesus' resurrection and is not a separate resurrection (see Rom 6:1-14), or he experiences second death to dishonor. I don't think the phrase "first resurrection" means that there are multiple resurrections, although one might consider the "second death" to be a type of resurrection.

Some within the early church thought that the "first resurrection" related to regeneration, but my view is that it is related to Jesus' resurrection, and those united with him in faith share his glorious resurrection. The word "first" indicates this association with his resurrection, but also is a word-play on second-death. Resurrection is to life and glory, death is to separation from God.

Regarding the Scriptures you mentioned, I think that dispensationalist try hard to squeeze gaps to assert a Millennium between different events, and I don't agree with their exegesis. I see too many verses that show no gaps and a general resurrection/judgment in the gospels and epistles.

But, you guys believe what you want. It's not a salvation issue. I think it is a disjointed way of viewing Scripture, and it leads to endless prophetic speculations, complex charts, etcetera. If that's what floats your boat, go for it.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
2,815
588
113
Death is defeated when Christ is returned.
What verse/passage/passages do you take that idea from? 1 Corinthians 15:24?

What do you think about Revelation 19:15b [the mid-section of that verse] (and correlating with Rev2:26-27 [involving the believers]), which shows a "shall [future-tense-to-that-point-in-the-chronology]" word?? ("and He shall [future tense] shepherd them [the nations] with a rod [/sceptre] of iron [righteousness and strength, like in Heb1:8]")

I'll come back in a minute and offer a few more thoughts to consider (on that other post I'd just made)... :)
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
4,476
491
83
I don't know what you're asking.

Dispensationalism is largely an American position on eschatology. Amillennialism is much more common in Europe.

However my guess is that Africans, when they focus on eschatology, are dispensationalist because of the Pentecostal/charismatic influence. These groups tend to be dispensationalists.

You keep using the term "American" (South America, Central America, North America) which is a continent, not a country are you meaning the United States?
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
581
319
63
You keep using the term "American" (South America, Central America, North America) which is a continent, not a country are you meaning the United States?
Your point is a good one, but I would add that as far as evangelicals go, my guess is South America, Central America are largely Pentecostal/Charismatic, which would tend to carry dispensationalism along with their theology. I doubt they really understand it, though. I am finding that many dispensationalists don't even understand the details, even though they fiercely defend it.

Around the Indiana/Michigan/Ohio tri-state area, a large percentage of evangelical churches are dispensational...maybe even 80 percent.

If I'm going to hold a theology I'm going to understand it at some level.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
2,815
588
113
I don't think the phrase "first resurrection" means that there are multiple resurrections, although one might consider the "second death" to be a type of resurrection.
Let me just say, about this phrase (in the bold and quotation marks), I too do NOT believe the phrase "FIRST resurrection" means there are "multiple resurrections" that FOLLOW this, as though it is the "first in TIME" and then others follow, like, "second," "third," fourth," etc... No. I believe "the FIRST resurrection" is "the resurrection OF LIFE" (Jn5:29a--for those in connection with Christ), but that IN that "first resurrection [that, OF LIFE]" there doesn't remain only ONE [one point in time/chronology] that this takes place.

Consider the following:

"[re: resurrection] But each [G1538 - Hekastos - [per BibleHub, defined as-->] 'each (of more than two)'] IN HIS OWN ORDER:..." - 1Cor15:23 (the wording "each in his own order" would be superfluous, IF there remains ONLY ONE [in one point-in-time] for "resurrection" remaining)

"blessed and holy is the one having A PART [G3313 - meros] in the first resurrection" Rev20:6 ['the resurrection OF LIFE' Jn5:29a]

[my understanding is that those ('still-living/mortal' saints) who ENTER the MK age (in mortal bodies, capable of bearing children/reproducing) "SHALL NEVER DIE" (per John 11:26, that verse [distinct from v.25]), but that those BORN TO them are not "BORN automatically righteous," so that THESE [born to them] are the ONLY ones who will be susceptible to "death," but that "death/dying" is reserved ONLY for the rebellious [that is, DURING the MK age], and we see them in the LATER GWTj (along with "the dead[/unsaved]" of all times) which GWTj is for the "dead [/unsaved]" of all times (the SECOND of the TWO "PUNISH" words in the Isaiah 24:21-22[23] chronology, and the Jn5:29b part: "resurrection of condemnation/damnation")]

___________


Along with this, is the concept of there being MORE than ONE "harvest" (both in Scripture, and in nature)... IOW, I see that [besides Jesus Himself] the word "firstfruit" is applied (distinctly) to both "the 144,000 [of Israel]" and to "the Church which is His body" (and we see TWO distinct "firstfruit" in the Leviticus 23 chapter; Jesus having fulfilled [what is called] "FIRSTFRUIT" [vv.10-12] on the very day of His resurrection, the very day that the Lev23:10-12 passage speaks of, per 1Cor15:20, not to mention what He said to Mary Magdalene in John 20:17 [speaking of what He would do THAT VERY DAY (NOT the LATER Acts1 thing!)])

____________

Do you have any thoughts on the "EACH" word meaning "of more than two" in that verse, above?
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
4,476
491
83
Your point is a good one, but I would add that as far as evangelicals go, my guess is South America, Central America are largely Pentecostal/Charismatic, which would tend to carry dispensationalism along with their theology. I doubt they really understand it, though. I am finding that many dispensationalists don't even understand the details, even though they fiercely defend it.

Around the Indiana/Michigan/Ohio tri-state area, a large percentage of evangelical churches are dispensational...maybe even 80 percent.

If I'm going to hold a theology I'm going to understand it at some level.
In South and Central America Catholic's are more common.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
581
319
63
What verse/passage/passages do you take that idea from? 1 Corinthians 15:24?

What do you think about Revelation 19:15b [the mid-section of that verse] (and correlating with Rev2:26-27 [involving the believers]), which shows a "shall [future-tense-to-that-point-in-the-chronology]" word?? ("and He shall [future tense] shepherd them [the nations] with a rod [/sceptre] of iron [righteousness and strength, like in Heb1:8]")

I'll come back in a minute and offer a few more thoughts to consider (on that other post I'd just made)... :)
Amillennials teach that believers, especially those who have died in the past, are ruling with Jesus now, sharing his authority as he rules over the nations. You can find numerous Scriptures that support this concept that believers are reigning with Christ now. Rev. 20 would be one place to start.

https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/27--was-jesus-an-amillennialist--revelation-2:26-29-
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
581
319
63
In South and Central America Catholic's are more common.
Right, that's why I conditioned my remarks by saying "as far as evangelicals go".

I was excluding Roman Catholicism.

Roman Catholics are not evangelicals. The word "evangelical" is hard to define but it basically means individuals who believe in justification by grace through faith alone, and that Scripture alone is the infallible and inerrant source of authority for the believer.

I don't know how much exposure Panama has to evangelical theology, and I notice you are from Panama.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
8,978
2,772
113
You can find numerous Scriptures that support this concept that believers are reigning with Christ now.
If this were actually true there would be UNIVERSAL PEACE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS ON EARTH. Christians do not have the liberty to manufacture theology and create fantasies.

When the saints actually reign with Christ during that 1,000 year period, Satan is LITERALLY BOUND in the bottomless pit. Which means that all evil influences on earth have been shut down while Christ is in control.

REVELATION 20
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
581
319
63
Wasnt the Plymouth Brethern from England in Europe?
Darby's theology didn't catch on very well there. I get the idea that the majority of Plymouth Brethren didn't buy into all of his theology.

By the way, if you saw the links above from Sermon Audio, the guy who gave those three lectures goes through all of that...his name is Brian Borgman. He did a 60-message set on church history and 3 episodes covered the history and beliefs of dispensationalism since he is a former dispensationalist.

If you cant find the links let me know and I'll send them to you. They were very interesting.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
581
319
63
If this were actually true there would be UNIVERSAL PEACE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS ON EARTH. Christians do not have the liberty to manufacture theology and create fantasies.

When the saints actually reign with Christ during that 1,000 year period, Satan is LITERALLY BOUND in the bottomless pit. Which means that all evil influences on earth have been shut down while Christ is in control.

REVELATION 20
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
The amillennial position is that Satan is bound in the sense that he cannot deceive the nations as a whole anymore..and the phrase "the nations" is a commonly used phrase to refer to Gentiles. Satan is not bound in every sense, only in this sense. He cannot prevent Christians from evangelizing and suppress the knowledge of the truth in a comprehensive manner like he did prior to the cross.

And.....do you deny that Christians are ruling with Jesus now? Are you really going to challenge me that I can't supply verses to this effect? By virtue of union with Christ, this is taught in Scripture. If you want me to show you verses, I will, but it will basically reveal that you aren't familiar with Scripture.

You can start with Ephesians 2:6-7. Believers are already seated with Jesus in his throne.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
2,815
588
113
Amillennials teach that believers, especially those who have died in the past, are ruling with Jesus now, sharing his authority as he rules over the nations. You can find numerous Scriptures that support this concept that believers are reigning with Christ now. Rev. 20 would be one place to start.
I've read Sam Storms (and of course, you know I disagree with him... not interested in reading him again)... My question involved, what do YOU think about the Rev19:15b wording regarding Jesus (at that point in the chronology) and it saying "HE SHALL [future] shepherd them [the nations] with a rod [/sceptre] of iron [righteousness and strength, like in Heb1:8]"? Do you believe this correlates with the Lk19:12,15,17,19 passage [re: "RETURN"]? and what that passage ALSO shows to involve? ["have thou authority over 10 cities"... "likewise be thou over 5"... and that "cities" are located on the earth]... and what about the fact that "King" is used only TWO times in all of the epistles, and both of them are "future" (ex: "which IN HIS TIMES He SHALL SHEW [openly manifest], who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" [see that "K-of-k, and L-of-l" phrase used only elsewhere in Rev19:16 (and 17:14, I believe in reverse order there)], ...

[will have to finish this post in another segment... ;) ]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
2,815
588
113
Amillennials teach that believers, especially those who have died in the past, are ruling with Jesus now, sharing his authority as he rules over the nations. You can find numerous Scriptures that support this concept that believers are reigning with Christ now.
As to the bold ^ , do you believe THAT is what Jesus meant, when he told the 12 (in Lk22:30,16,18 and Matt19:28 [<--which verse is parallel TIME-WISE with Matt25:31-34 (Sheep and goat separation) which doesn't take place until His "RETURN" to the earth] ) that they would "sit on twelve thrones, judgING the twelve tribes of Israel"?? Is "what you said" what this/these passage/s refer to??
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
581
319
63
I've read Sam Storms (and of course, you know I disagree with him... not interested in reading him again)... My question involved, what do YOU think about the Rev19:15b wording regarding Jesus (at that point in the chronology) and it saying "HE SHALL [future] shepherd them [the nations] with a rod [/sceptre] of iron [righteousness and strength, like in Heb1:8]"? Do you believe this correlates with the Lk19:12,15,17,19 passage [re: "RETURN"]? and what that passage ALSO shows to involve? ["have thou authority over 10 cities"... "likewise be thou over 5"... and that "cities" are located on the earth]... and what about the fact that "King" is used only TWO times in all of the epistles, and both of them are "future" (ex: "which IN HIS TIMES He SHALL SHEW [openly manifest], who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" [see that "K-of-k, and L-of-l" phrase used only elsewhere in Rev19:16 (and 17:14, I believe in reverse order there)], ...

[will have to finish this post in another segment... ;) ]
You're going to have to learn to write in briefer, shorter sentences. You write like the Puritans :)
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
4,476
491
83
The amillennial position is that Satan is bound in the sense that he cannot deceive the nations as a whole anymore..and the phrase "the nations" is a commonly used phrase to refer to Gentiles. Satan is not bound in every sense, only in this sense. He cannot prevent Christians from evangelizing and suppress the knowledge of the truth in a comprehensive manner like he did prior to the cross.

And.....do you deny that Christians are ruling with Jesus now? Are you really going to challenge me that I can't supply verses to this effect? By virtue of union with Christ, this is taught in Scripture. If you want me to show you verses, I will, but it will basically reveal that you aren't familiar with Scripture.

You can start with Ephesians 2:6-7. Believers are already seated with Jesus in his throne.
In Acts 17:31,1 Corinthians 15:52,1 Thess.4:16, Acts 24:15 why do the Apostles use the future tense speech of the resurrection?
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
2,815
588
113
You're going to have to learn to write in briefer, shorter sentences. You write like the Puritans :)
Okay, how 'bout this... :D do YOU equate (at least in some measure):

--the Rev19:15b wording regarding Jesus (at that point in the chronology) and it saying "HE SHALL [future] shepherd them [the nations] with a rod [/sceptre] of iron [righteousness and strength, like in Heb1:8]"?

[with]

--the Lk19:12,15,17,19 passage [re: His "RETURN"]? and what that passage ALSO shows to involve? ["have thou authority over 10 cities"... "likewise be thou over 5 [cities]"... and that "cities" are located on the earth]




OR, do you NOT see Rev19:15b as referring to that which follows His "RETURN"?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
8,978
2,772
113
The amillennial position is that Satan is bound in the sense that he cannot deceive the nations as a whole anymore..
The Amillennial position is totally bogus, since what we see all around us (and in the daily news) is that Satan is presently deceiving and influencing the nations. As to the rest of your post, it is immaterial since this core truth is being denied.

Furthermore God will give Satan and the Antichrist 3 1/2 years TO TAKE TOTAL CONTROL OF THIS EARTH AND ITS INHABITANTS (Rev 13). So either Satan is LITERALLY bound or he is not. And at present he is definitely not bound.

Believers are positionally with Christ in Heaven, but definitely not reigning on earth. Christians are been persecuted and killed daily instead.