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

[UnitedWithChrist]

I was listening to a conversation concerning biblical interpretation.

One younger believer made the bold statement, "there are no allegories in Scripture". I was pretty sure his comment came from one of his usual sources of information, which include a potpourri of dispensationalists.

I am not a dispensationalist, nor am I a fan of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists often accuse others of "spiritualizing Scripture" or "allegorization" if their analysis differs from dispensationalism.

I am very much into understanding the shadows and types of Scripture, and viewing Scripture as an organic revelation. Dispensationalism presents more of a disjointed view of Scripture.

Anyways, I tracked the remark down to John MacArthur:

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-463/how-should-we-interpret-the-bible

Now, here's one thing you have to understand: John MacArthur is a dispensationalist. He is one of the individuals who claims that others spiritualize Scripture. If anyone views Scripture in a manner inconsistent with dispensationalism, he will cry foul and accuse them of spiritualizing and not taking Scripture literally. This includes brothers in Christ who consider the word of God to be infallible and inspired just like he does. However, if they don't apply the Scripture in the way that he views it, he has issues with them.

I am wondering how John makes sense of Galatians 4, where the allegory of Hagar and Sarai is discussed. Yep, that's right..even the underlying Greek word refers to an allegory.

By the way, don't be unaware of how widespread this issue is. Most American evangelicals are dispensationalists, even though they never heard the word. If your church believes in a pretribulation rapture, you are definitely dispensationalist. One of the characteristics of dispensationalism is the fact that they view the Church and Israel as two separate peoples of God.

Anyways, if you have an open mind, I recommend the book A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger. It is the best book I've seen on the topic.

Also, if you want to understand the historical roots and teachings of dispensationalism, Brian Borgman (a former dispensationalist) has three lessons on it:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101510492
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101523139
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101519187

Brian explains how dispensationalism became associated with orthodoxy through the fundamentalist movement, as many of the proponents of fundamentalism were dispensationalist in their theology. And, while dispensationalism has a high regard for Scripture and its inerrancy and infallibility, they tend to view interpretations involving figurative references to be suspect. In fact, they will attempt to claim that non-dispys are using the Roman Catholic hermeneutical methods if their interpretation does not align with dispensationalism.

I am well aware that some dispensationalists are so close-minded on this topic that they consider non-dispys to be heretics. And, they really don't want people to examine all the different views in this respect. They view dispensationalism as being the unquestioned truth, and anyone who doesn't believe it is living an immoral life, because they are not expecting the Rapture at any moment like they are, and are indulging in the flesh as a result.

Well, that's actually a bunch of propaganda. All of us should realize that our life could end at the next moment, if we had an auto accident or died of some hidden health condition. I had a near-fatal accident three years ago, so I am aware of my impending appointment with death.

Anyways, I encourage you to look at the various different views regarding end-time events.

Here they are:

Amillennialism
Historical Premillennialism
Postmillennialism
Premillennial Dispensationalism

I will attach a PDF file that you might enjoy in this regard.

Disclaimer: I like John MacArthur and am reading a book authored by him about forgiveness currently. So, I am not disrespecting his labor of love. On this issue, though, I would like to propose that he has a blind spot. I won't engage in MacArthur-bashing as I agree with him in many ways. I am just encouraging all serious bible students to realize that dispensationalism is a questionable view that most conservative Christians consider to be unquestionable fact.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[…]If anyone views Scripture in a manner inconsistent with dispensationalism, he will cry foul and accuse them of spiritualizing and not taking Scripture literally. This includes brothers in Christ who consider the word of God to be infallible and inspired just like he does. However, if they don't apply the Scripture in the way that he views it, he has issues with them.
[…]

And, while dispensationalism has a high regard for Scripture and its inerrancy and infallibility, they tend to view interpretations involving figurative references to be suspect. In fact, they will attempt to claim that non-dispys are using the Roman Catholic hermeneutical methods if their interpretation does not align with dispensationalism.
[…]

I wouldn't say that is the case with ALL dispensationalists (and besides, it seems to me that JM is somewhat more closely aligned with covenant theology in many ways [his "Gospel according to Jesus" book, etc]). I've already (recently) made a point about the text of 1Cor10:11 "upon whom the *ENDS [plural] of the AGES [plural] are arrived" and the TWO DISTINCT aspects this is referring to, and have "application" toward), so don't care to go into all that, here.


[*distinct from the phrase "the END [SINGULAR] of the AGE [SINGULAR]" and other variations, AND from "this present age [singular]"]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

EDIT: "[*distinct from the phrase "the END [SINGULAR] of the AGE [SINGULAR]" and other variations, AND from "this present age [singular]" (though relating to EACH of these TWO)]


…and not distinguishing these (all these ^ ) is what often trips people up (and has them wrongly applying the "union" truths, as well, IMO--b/c Eph1:10 is not referring to "in this PRESENT [AGE]"/now [where it says, "in the dispensation of the fulness of times"])

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I wouldn't say that is the case with ALL dispensationalists (and besides, it seems to me that JM is somewhat more closely aligned with covenant theology in many ways). I've already (recently) made a point about the text of 1Cor10:11 "upon whom the ENDS [plural] of the AGES [plural] are arrived" and the TWO DISTINCT aspects this is referring to, and have "application" toward).

Amillennialists believe in a two-age system; this age and the age to come. Therefore there are two ages in the amillennial system.

And, yes, coming up with an abstract dispensationalist is hard. It's like trying to nail jello to the wall because so many different dispensationalists have modified the classic system after being exposed to arguments against it.

For the uninformed person, I'd recommend listening to the audios I referenced above. Borgman was a former dispensationalist. If I'm not mistaken, he was more of the classic variety.

MacArthur says that he is a "leaky dispensationalist" but I don't think he would agree that he is close to covenant theology. Maybe you can elaborate on which aspects of covenant theology he agrees with.

Personally I think he is a dispensationalist but doesn't want to own the seven-age scheme that Ryrie and earlier dispensationalists hold.

By the way, I am not necessarily a covenant theology guy either..I like the view of 1689 Federalism, which claims to be the actual view of most Particular Baptists at the time the London Confession was drawn up. They teach that the Mosaic Covenant was typological, and not an earlier administration of "the covenant of grace". In some ways this view reconciles covenant theology with dispensationalism.

I agree with some aspects of dispensationalism, but definitely not the Jew/Gentile distinction that almost all dispensationalists maintains. This leads to their pretribulation rapture theory, and the treatment of the church age as a mere parenthesis in redemptive history that occurred only because the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah.

It's really interesting to examine these four different belief systems, regardless of which one you hold.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

EDIT again (sorry, I didn't write that correctly): should read, "…and not distinguishing these (all these ^ ) is what often trips people up (and has them wrongly applying the "union" truths, as well, IMO--b/c Eph1:10 is not referring to "in this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]"/i.e. now [where it says, "in the dispensation of the fulness of times"])


IOW, "the END [SINGULAR] of the AGE [SINGULAR]" is NOT (the same as) "this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]" (etc [the other particular combos of words], but this is the main one that trips ppl up, thinking Eph 1:10 refers to the NOW--it doesn't!)

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

EDIT again (sorry, I didn't write that correctly): should read, "…and not distinguishing these (all these ^ ) is what often trips people up (and has them wrongly applying the "union" truths, as well, IMO--b/c Eph1:10 is not referring to "in this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]"/now [where it says, "in the dispensation of the fulness of times"])

I operate within a two-age system..the present evil age, and the age to come. I don't think there is a millennial interval in between. This is the way it looks like Jesus and the apostles viewed it, and I do not hold to the view of Rev. 20 that dispensationalists hold. In fact, I don't view Revelation as being a linear progression of events, but a series of at least four visions that have overlapping content in some regards.

For instance, there is a noticeable difference between the end of Rev 11 and the beginning of Rev 12. Those who hold the view that Revelation is sequential have issues with this. And, once this view is taken away, then the dispensatlonalist interpretation lacks credibility in my mind.

However, I could be wrong My fundamental commitment is to Christ and not to a particular eschatological system.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

EDIT (sorry for my slow edits!) : "but this is the main one that trips ppl up, thinking Eph 1:10 refers to the NOW--it doesn't! [and this results in blurring together "the Church which is His body" and "Israel" etc])

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I operate within a two-age system..the present evil age, and the age to come. I don't think there is a millennial interval in between.

What I'm saying is, that while there is a MK (1000 yrs [future, in my view]) that it is NOT what is being referred to as being "between" "this present age" and "the age to come"... this is to wrongly apply those two distinct phrases (by thinking that "the END [SINGULAR] of the AGE [SINGULAR]" refers to/is equated with "this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]" when in fact it does not)…

Make sense?

This is where ppl get all tripped up! (Kim too! lol)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I was listening to a conversation concerning biblical interpretation.

One younger believer made the bold statement, "there are no allegories in Scripture". I was pretty sure his comment came from one of his usual sources of information, which include a potpourri of dispensationalists.

I am not a dispensationalist, nor am I a fan of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists often accuse others of "spiritualizing Scripture" or "allegorization" if their analysis differs from dispensationalism.

I am very much into understanding the shadows and types of Scripture, and viewing Scripture as an organic revelation. Dispensationalism presents more of a disjointed view of Scripture.

Anyways, I tracked the remark down to John MacArthur:

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-463/how-should-we-interpret-the-bible

Now, here's one thing you have to understand: John MacArthur is a dispensationalist. He is one of the individuals who claims that others spiritualize Scripture. If anyone views Scripture in a manner inconsistent with dispensationalism, he will cry foul and accuse them of spiritualizing and not taking Scripture literally. This includes brothers in Christ who consider the word of God to be infallible and inspired just like he does. However, if they don't apply the Scripture in the way that he views it, he has issues with them.

I am wondering how John makes sense of Galatians 4, where the allegory of Hagar and Sarai is discussed. Yep, that's right..even the underlying Greek word refers to an allegory.

By the way, don't be unaware of how widespread this issue is. Most American evangelicals are dispensationalists, even though they never heard the word. If your church believes in a pretribulation rapture, you are definitely dispensationalist. One of the characteristics of dispensationalism is the fact that they view the Church and Israel as two separate peoples of God.

Anyways, if you have an open mind, I recommend the book A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger. It is the best book I've seen on the topic.

Also, if you want to understand the historical roots and teachings of dispensationalism, Brian Borgman (a former dispensationalist) has three lessons on it:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101510492
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101523139
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101519187

Brian explains how dispensationalism became associated with orthodoxy through the fundamentalist movement, as many of the proponents of fundamentalism were dispensationalist in their theology. And, while dispensationalism has a high regard for Scripture and its inerrancy and infallibility, they tend to view interpretations involving figurative references to be suspect. In fact, they will attempt to claim that non-dispys are using the Roman Catholic hermeneutical methods if their interpretation does not align with dispensationalism.

I am well aware that some dispensationalists are so close-minded on this topic that they consider non-dispys to be heretics. And, they really don't want people to examine all the different views in this respect. They view dispensationalism as being the unquestioned truth, and anyone who doesn't believe it is living an immoral life, because they are not expecting the Rapture at any moment like they are, and are indulging in the flesh as a result.

Well, that's actually a bunch of propaganda. All of us should realize that our life could end at the next moment, if we had an auto accident or died of some hidden health condition. I had a near-fatal accident three years ago, so I am aware of my impending appointment with death.

Anyways, I encourage you to look at the various different views regarding end-time events.

Here they are:

Amillennialism
Historical Premillennialism
Postmillennialism
Premillennial Dispensationalism

I will attach a PDF file that you might enjoy in this regard.

Disclaimer: I like John MacArthur and am reading a book authored by him about forgiveness currently. So, I am not disrespecting his labor of love. On this issue, though, I would like to propose that he has a blind spot. I won't engage in MacArthur-bashing as I agree with him in many ways. I am just encouraging all serious bible students to realize that dispensationalism is a questionable view that most conservative Christians consider to be unquestionable fact.

One thing is for sure

You do not understand dispensationalsim. Like many who are against it, Your argument against it is nonsensical.

There are all kinds of allegorical. Or symbolic scripture. The law is full of it. Israel is part of it.. and even jesus spoke in parable form.

But one thing we can not do. Is take prophesy symbolically. God uses prophesy for one purpose and ne purpose only. To PROVE to the nations he is the one and only God. He can not do that if he speaks a prophesy, and the prophesy does not literally come true, but it is symbolically fulfilled. That would make him NO BETTER than nostrodumus or any of the other so called secular prophets.

it is not a dispensational thing, it is an interpretation thing.

All Dispensationalism does, is it is a means to try to take biblical history and put into a way we can easily understand it. That is all it is.

If you REALLY want to talk about dispensationalsim, let me know. If you want to continue to be left in the dark about it, CONTINUE to believe what you evidently have been taught.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I agree with some aspects of dispensationalism, but definitely not the Jew/Gentile distinction that almost all dispensationalists maintains. This leads to their pretribulation rapture theory, and the treatment of the church age as a mere parenthesis in redemptive history that occurred only because the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah.

I believe the above (bold) is a puny way of describing... and speaks to the very thing I am endeavoring to point out about how Eph1:10 is not referring to the "now" (which is what trips up so many).

[i.e. getting all these phrases I've pointed out blurred into one mish-mash of mush. lol ("the END of the AGE" is NOT "this PRESENT AGE" etc... [all the distinct phrasings of these; plurals and singulars, etc])]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

UnitedWithChrist said:
I operate within a two-age system..the present evil age, and the age to come. I don't think there is a millennial interval in between.

So, when I say "millennial [kingdom]" is NOT "in between" [what is referred to by] these ^ phrases (you referred to here), that is because (in part, not the full explanation):

--"the age [singular] to come" IS the MK age (the Millennial Kingdom)

--"the END [SINGULAR] of the AGE [SINGULAR]" is NOT "this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]/this present evil AGE [singular]"

--Eph1:10 is not referring to what is taking place NOW / "in this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]" (this trips up most ppl; and this impacts the "union" truths)

--"the ages [plural] of the ages [plural]" refers to eternity/forever (the phrase "the AGE [SINGULAR] to come" does not)

--etc...


[not grasping these, and other truths (like the TWO "raise" aspects of Acts 3), is how ppl come up with "Amill"]

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

One thing is for sure

You do not understand dispensationalsim. Like many who are against it, Your argument against it is nonsensical.

There are all kinds of allegorical. Or symbolic scripture. The law is full of it. Israel is part of it.. and even jesus spoke in parable form.

But one thing we can not do. Is take prophesy symbolically. God uses prophesy for one purpose and ne purpose only. To PROVE to the nations he is the one and only God. He can not do that if he speaks a prophesy, and the prophesy does not literally come true, but it is symbolically fulfilled. That would make him NO BETTER than nostrodumus or any of the other so called secular prophets.

it is not a dispensational thing, it is an interpretation thing.

All Dispensationalism does, is it is a means to try to take biblical history and put into a way we can easily understand it. That is all it is.

If you REALLY want to talk about dispensationalsim, let me know. If you want to continue to be left in the dark about it, CONTINUE to believe what you evidently have been taught.

Did you read the remarks that MacArthur made in his message? He said clearly that there are no allegories in Scripture. He is an authority on dispensationalism, being a dispensationalist himself. I have heard others say the same thing.

So, what you are telling me is that a recognized authority on dispensationalism doesn't know what he's talking about? If so, I agree with you


For everyone else, I recommend that you look at the link I provided and see John MacArthur's explicit statement that there are no allegories in Scripture.

By the way his remark is not unique. Other dispensationalists accuse others of interpreting Scripture figuratively or allegorical. It is a COMMON complaint.

Besides this, there are many prophecies that are expressed in figurative language that are fulfilled literally, and there are prophecies concerning Israel that are fulfilled in spiritual Israel, the Church. Israel was a shadow or type of the Church. It's pretty plain to me.


Before the charge of "replacement theology" is leveled, I would like to make it known that I believe in "fulfillment theology". Some prophecies regarding Israel were fulfilled in Christ, who is the True Israel, and some are fulfilled in the Church.

Besides this, every believer is joined to Jesus and is a spiritual Israelite in God's sight. This is part of the doctrine of union with Christ.

The believer is joined to Jesus. Jesus is a spiritual descendant of Abraham. Therefore, the believer receives all that is promised to Jesus, the descendant of Abraham. Believers collectively compose the church. The entire world was promised to Abraham (Rom 4).

Seems pretty simple to me.

For those who are open minded, I'd suggest listening to Borgman's audios. This discussion will make much more sense. Dispensationalists get mad as wet hens when their doctrines are questioned

 

[Nehemiah6]

Let's leave John MacArthur to whatever he believes. One cannot be a Dispensationalist and a Calvinist at the same time. And we do not need to discuss specific preachers.

Dispensationalism presents more of a disjointed view of Scripture.

1. That is incorrect. In fact, I will be more blunt. It is TOTAL BALONEY. There is nothing *disjointed* about recognizing that God has dealt with humans in different ways at different times. Indeed the Bible clearly reveals this, and "but now" and "for until" shows a change in how God is dealing with men:

And the times of this ignorance God winked at [overlooked] ; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:13,14)

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Rom 16:25,26)

2. Dispensationalists clearly understand that there are types throughout Scripture, as well as allegories. Christ Himself showed us that the Brazen Serpent was a type of Christ. Indeed the Bible tells us that there are types and allegories in Scripture:
GALATIANS 4
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

One of the characteristics of dispensationalism is the fact that they view the Church and Israel as two separate peoples of God.

And that is exactly what Scripture reveals as related to REDEEMED AND RESTORED ISRAEL after the Second Coming of Christ. Replacement Theology is false and also bogus. The Church does not replace Israel, and the Church will not be settled in the land of Israel according to what is revealed in Ezekiel and other prophecies.

They view dispensationalism as being the unquestioned truth, and anyone who doesn't believe it is living an immoral life, because they are not expecting the Rapture at any moment like they are, and are indulging in the flesh as a result.

This is TOTAL NONSENSE. You have just joined CC and now you are the one promoting anti-Dispensationlist propaganda.

The primary position of Dispensationalism is that Scripture must be firstly taken in its plain literal sense, while accepting the existence of symbols, metaphors, figures of speech, and parables by RIGHTLY DIVIDING [INTEPRETING] THE WORD OF TRUTH. Prophecies cannot be simply spiritualized away and things cannot simply be made to represent something which they are not. And one thousand years (Rev 20) cannot be made to mean something else, or something which does not exist.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Did you read the remarks that MacArthur made in his message? He said clearly that there are no allegories in Scripture. He is an authority on dispensationalism, being a dispensationalist himself. I have heard others say the same thing.

Macarther is not my authority

My authority comes from God. And my studies.

There are many types of dispensational thinking, I have no idea what macarther thinks , I have never studied him, I must wonder what context he is saying those things?

So, what you are telling me is that a recognized authority on dispensationalism doesn't know what he's talking about? If so, I agree with you

Lol. If macarther said what you claim

1. He is no authority on dispensationalism,
2. He is in deep error.
3. Can you tell me the CONTeXT of macarthers words? Was he speaking of prophecy only. Or the whole bible? (Just want to clarify) I ask because I am not going to judge something I have not seen

For everyone else, I recommend that you look at the link I provided and see John MacArthur's explicit statement that there are no allegories in Scripture.

By the way his remark is not unique. Other dispensationalists accuse others of interpreting Scripture figuratively or allegorical. It is a COMMON complaint.

Besides this, there are many prophecies that are expressed in figurative language that are fulfilled literally, and there are prophecies concerning Israel that are fulfilled in spiritual Israel, the Church. Israel was a shadow or type of the Church. It's pretty plain to me.


Before the charge of "replacement theology" is leveled, I would like to make it known that I believe in "fulfillment theology". Some prophecies regarding Israel were fulfilled in Christ, who is the True Israel, and some are fulfilled in the Church.

Besides this, every believer is joined to Jesus and is a spiritual Israelite in God's sight. This is part of the doctrine of union with Christ.

The believer is joined to Jesus. Jesus is a spiritual descendant of Abraham. Therefore, the believer receives all that is promised to Jesus, the descendant of Abraham. Believers collectively compose the church. The entire world was promised to Abraham (Rom 4).

Seems pretty simple to me.

For those who are open minded, I'd suggest listening to Borgman's audios. This discussion will make much more sense. Dispensationalists get mad as wet hens when their doctrines are questioned

I have NEVER heard anyone accuse people of tryign to interpret SCRIPTURE allegorical
I HAVE seen people accused of interpreting PROPHESY allegorically. WHich would be a grave sin and grave error

AGain, WHAT IS the CONTEXT?

Are you slandering someone out of context. Or speaking the truth?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

So, when I say "millennial [kingdom]" is NOT "in between" [what is referred to by] these ^ phrases (you referred to here), that is because (in part, not the full explanation):

--"the age [singular] to come" IS the MK age (the Millennial Kingdom)

--"the END [SINGULAR] of the AGE [SINGULAR]" is NOT "this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]/this present evil AGE [singular]"

--Eph1:10 is not referring to what is taking place NOW / "in this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]" (this trips up most ppl; and this impacts the "union" truths)

--"the ages [plural] of the ages [plural]" refers to eternity/forever (the phrase "the AGE [SINGULAR] to come" does not)

--etc...

This isn't intuitive to me.

However, I don't have a big issue with more than two ages, with more than one age occurring prior to the return of Christ.

In fact, Peter speaks of the age prior to the Flood, the age after the Flood until the New Heavens/New Earth, and finally the New Heavens/New Earth.

See II Pet 3.

The real issue is I don't think Revelation is a sequence of events as portrayed by dispensationalists, and are not overlapping with duplicate content. It's pretty obvious that it is a series of visions with overlapping content. Additionally, I don't believe that the judgment of the righteous and wicked occur with a thousand year separation, and that evil continues to exist after Jesus' return.

The resurrection occurs at his return and death is defeated at that point, not later. The events as portrayed by Jesus and the apostles reflect this fact. I look at the clear scriptures, and form my theology based on them..not on Revelation 20 and the dispensationalist interpretation of it.

The Gospels and the Epistles were clear on that. I go by clear Scriptures, not obscure ones.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Macarther is not my authority

My authority comes from God. And my studies.

There are many types of dispensational thinking, I have no idea what macarther thinks , I have never studied him, I must wonder what context he is saying those things?




Lol. If macarther said what you claim

1. He is no authority on dispensationalism,
2. He is in deep error.
3. Can you tell me the CONTeXT of macarthers words? Was he speaking of prophecy only. Or the whole bible? (Just want to clarify) I ask because I am not going to judge something I have not seen





I have NEVER heard anyone accuse people of tryign to interpret SCRIPTURE allegorical
I HAVE seen people accused of interpreting PROPHESY allegorically. WHich would be a grave sin and grave error

AGain, WHAT IS the CONTEXT?

Are you slandering someone out of context. Or speaking the truth?

I provided the iink above in the OP. Listen to MacArthur's own words (or read them).

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

--Eph1:10 is not referring to what is taking place NOW / "in this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]" (this trips up most ppl; and this impacts the "union" truths)

Let me try to be a little more clear on this point (lest someone out there misunderstand my point): Eph1:10 is not referring to the NOW; but Ephesians 1:20-23 ("the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [wherein there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in our standing before God "IN CHRIST"]) *IS in the NOW/"in this present age [singular]."

Eph1:10 (by contrast) is referring to the MK age (or perhaps even its conclusion [as in, "summing up"]), but not NOW/"in this PRESENT [AGE]"

 

[Leastamongmany]

Let's leave John MacArthur to whatever he believes. One cannot be a Dispensationalist and a Calvinist at the same time. And we do not need to discuss specific preachers.

1. That is incorrect. In fact, I will be more blunt. It is TOTAL BALONEY. There is nothing *disjointed* about recognizing that God has dealt with humans in different ways at different times. Indeed the Bible clearly reveals this, and "but now" and "for until" shows a change in how God is dealing with men:

And the times of this ignorance God winked at [overlooked] ; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:13,14)

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Rom 16:25,26)

2. Dispensationalists clearly understand that there are types throughout Scripture, as well as allegories. Christ Himself showed us that the Brazen Serpent was a type of Christ. Indeed the Bible tells us that there are types and allegories in Scripture:
GALATIANS 4
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

And that is exactly what Scripture reveals as related to REDEEMED AND RESTORED ISRAEL after the Second Coming of Christ. Replacement Theology is false and also bogus. The Church does not replace Israel, and the Church will not be settled in the land of Israel according to what is revealed in Ezekiel and other prophecies.

This is TOTAL NONSENSE. You have just joined CC and now you are the one promoting anti-Dispensationlist propaganda.

The primary position of Dispensationalism is that Scripture must be firstly taken in its plain literal sense, while accepting the existence of symbols, metaphors, figures of speech, and parables by RIGHTLY DIVIDING [INTEPRETING] THE WORD OF TRUTH. Prophecies cannot be simply spiritualized away and things cannot simply be made to represent something which they are not. And one thousand years (Rev 20) cannot be made to mean something else, or something which does not exist.

I agree. The bible is full of the mysteries of God tru many different types and shadows,that MUST be spiritually discerned under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The whole,not parts of His H.S inspired word is our guideline in our walk! I must be a dispensationalist!...lol

 

[Nehemiah6]

...not on Revelation 20 and the dispensationalist interpretation of it.

What is the plain literal meaning of Revelation 20? Since *a (one) thousand years* (Gk chilia ete) is repeated SIX TIMES within seven verses, God makes it plain to anyone who is honest, that He means exactly what He says -- 1,000 years which is also called a Millennium. Will there be a literal Millennial reign of Christ on earth? Absolutely. If you cannot believe that, they you should not claim to believe any part of Scripture.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

So, when I say "millennial [kingdom]" is NOT "in between" [what is referred to by] these ^ phrases (you referred to here), that is because (in part, not the full explanation):

--"the age [singular] to come" IS the MK age (the Millennial Kingdom)

--"the END [SINGULAR] of the AGE [SINGULAR]" is NOT "this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]/this present evil AGE [singular]"

--Eph1:10 is not referring to what is taking place NOW / "in this PRESENT AGE [SINGULAR]" (this trips up most ppl; and this impacts the "union" truths)

--"the ages [plural] of the ages [plural]" refers to eternity/forever (the phrase "the AGE [SINGULAR] to come" does not)

--etc...


[not grasping these, and other truths (like the TWO "raise" aspects of Acts 3), is how ppl come up with "Amill"]

The two ages I acknowledge are the present evil age, between Adam and the second coming of Christ, and the age to come, meaning the New Heavens and New Earth.

Read Rev 21-22.

The New Heavens and the New Earth are, in essence, a return back to the Garden of Eden, except in a glorified form. The manifest presence of God will be displayed through all creation. Those individuals who are accounted worthy of attaining this restoration will not experience the effects of the curse anymore.

This begins at the resurrection, when glorification occurs, and this occurs at the return of Jesus.

This is the age to come, and the restoration of the creation shalom.

I'm not sure how dispensationalists view this, though. I detect some level of fuzziness in their understanding of the afterlife.