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

[UnitedWithChrist]

Just wondering why you have a MacArthur book on your recommended reading list?

He's a good author..I just don't agree with him on two issues: 1) dispensationalism and 2) mental health drugs.

In a way I agree with him on mental health drugs, and in a way I don't. I think they have limited value and from what I've heard, he doesn't think they should be used at all.

I don't like listening to his sermons, either..I like reading books primarily.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Just wondering why you have a MacArthur book on your recommended reading list?

By the way I'm reading a book of his on Forgiveness right now, and it's excellent.

 

[UnderGrace]

He's a good author..I just don't agree with him on two issues: 1) dispensationalism and 2) mental health drugs.

In a way I agree with him on mental health drugs, and in a way I don't. I think they have limited value and from what I've heard, he doesn't think they should be used at all.

I don't like listening to his sermons, either..I like reading books primarily.

Thank you, just curious.... I gave away all his books and to this day I still don't miss them.

 

[UnderGrace]

By the way I'm reading a book of his on Forgiveness right now, and it's excellent.

I'll pass.

 

[Hevosmies358]

Informative OP with good links and resources. You can never learn too much!

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

So EDIT (to add my post re: the brief MENTION of the Rev12 issue): https://christianchat.com/threads/w...r-after-great-tribulation.186698/post-4000348


Keep in mind, too, that v.13 says (in addition to what I'd put briefly at that post at link), "[the woman] who HAD BROUGHT FORTH the male [G730 - arsena/arren]" (no "child" word is in that verse)… so this is a mid-trib point in the chronology [when we view the surrounding timing words], pointing back to a previous event (which I do not believe refers to Jesus' birth) [a previous event, from that mid-trib point-in-time perspective ("the remnant of her seed" is not the same identity/entity)]

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

He's a good author..I just don't agree with him on two issues: 1) dispensationalism and 2) mental health drugs.

In a way I agree with him on mental health drugs, and in a way I don't. I think they have limited value and from what I've heard, he doesn't think they should be used at all.

I don't like listening to his sermons, either..I like reading books primarily.

Regarding mental health drugs, I had a friend who belonged to his congregation. He roomed with another guy from the church who had severe mental health issues. He would not take medication because of John's position on this, and it made things very rough for his roommates. I believe they are overprescribed but have some limited value.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

So EDIT (to add my post re: the brief MENTION of the Rev12 issue): https://christianchat.com/threads/w...r-after-great-tribulation.186698/post-4000348


Keep in mind, too, that v.13 says (in addition to what I'd put briefly at that post at link), "[the woman] who HAD BROUGHT FORTH the male [G730 - arsena/arren]" (no "child" word is in that verse)… so this is a mid-trib event/point in the chronology [when we view the surrounding timing words], pointing back to a previous event (which I do not believe refers to Jesus' birth)

What do you think it refers to, if not Jesus' birth?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Another thing I'd like to mention...at least one individual inferred that other millennial views are heretical.

This person has a failure to comprehend the difference between essential Christian doctrine and non-essential Christian doctrine.

Different eschatological positions are not a basis for heresy or orthodoxy, with the exception of full preterism.

The tendency of some within dispensationalism to level charges of heresy regarding different positions is one of the reasons why I would want to distance myself from them. I realize that not all dispensationalists behave that way, though.

 

[UnderGrace]

Regarding mental health drugs, I had a friend who belonged to his congregation. He roomed with another guy from the church who had severe mental health issues. He would not take medication because of John's position on this, and it made things very rough for his roommates. I believe they are overprescribed but have some limited value.

I did not know this about MacArthur ... I have had friends take lithium for bi-polar disorder and I am sure they would not function without it.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

What do you think it refers to, if not Jesus' birth?

I provided the link for that. Did you read it at all? It's not long or detailed, but your answer was found there.

 

[UnderGrace]

Another thing I'd like to mention...at least one individual inferred that other millennial views are heretical.

This person has a failure to comprehend the difference between essential Christian doctrine and non-essential Christian doctrine.

Different eschatological positions are not a basis for heresy or orthodoxy, with the exception of full preterism.

The tendency of some within dispensationalism to level charges of heresy regarding different positions is one of the reasons why I would want to distance myself from them. I realize that not all dispensationalists behave that way, though.

I would agree on this.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I did not know this about MacArthur ... I have had friends take lithium for bi-polar disorder and I am sure they would not function without it.

Correct..my aunt, who is a faithful Christian, has bipolar disorder, too.

I think there's a tendency within some groups to claim that all mental health issues relate to spiritual issues and can be solved by the Word of God. I agree that some are caused by spiritual issues, but the Fall has caused organic issues too. It's a mistake to fail to realize that both are factors.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

What do you think it refers to, if not Jesus' birth?

Plus, I had tweaked my post a bit (adding to it) that you had quoted (before my additions), my Post #46 (perhaps making it a little more clear).

 

[maxwel]

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.

Disagreement, Ridicule, & Context:

It is fine to disagree with other humans.
It is fine to disagree with John MacArthur.

However, before we disagree to the point of ridiculing them, we should FIRST TRY TO UNDERSTAND THEM IN CONTEXT.

Sometimes a person just isn't saying what we think they're saying.


CONTEXT - Let's Analyze the actual Sermon

1. John MacArthur states, in the sermon you linked, that scripture DOES CONTAIN: METAPHOR, ANALOGY, and FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.

2. This is PROOF that he does not take every word literally in a "wooden" sense.

3. Therefore, to accuse him of taking every word literally, in a "wooden" sense, is a false accusation; he clearly states quite the opposite IN THE SAME SERMON.

4. However, there is a place in the sermon that gets a bit odd; He actually DOES say there are no allegories in the Bible.

5. This does indeed seem odd.

6. But, once again, we should take this in CONTEXT.

7. BEFORE stating the Bible contains no allegories, he first gives a PARTICULAR DEFINITION for allegory; he carefully DEFINES HIS TERMS, so we may understand precisely what HE MEANS when he is using the term "allegory".

8. Why does he first take the time to carefully DEFINE TERMS? It is precisely for the goal of clarity; he wants us to know PRECISELY what HE MEANS, and what HE DOES NOT MEAN, when he uses the term "allegory." He may, or may not, be using allegory in the normal way it is used... but he does take the time to CLARIFY EXACTLY HOW HE IS USING THE TERM.

9. Personally, I would not have stated things in this way. I think it's confusing.

10. But we CANNOT accuse him of teaching every word in the bible is literal, because he CLEARLY SAYS, in THIS VERY SERMON, that the bible DOES USE: METAPHOR, ANALOGY, and FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.

Let me reiterate:
we cannot accuse him of teaching every word in the Bible is literal in some "wooden" sense, as he clearly states, in this very sermon, that the bible contains: metaphor, analogy, and figurative language.



Rational Disagreement:

1. We cannot accuse him of teaching the Bible is literal in some "wooden" sense, as he clearly states the bible uses metaphor, analogy, and figurative language.

2. We can however accuse him of interpreting some passages differently than we do - that is a rational claim.

3. We can disagree sharply, and claim his interpretations are wrong - that is a rational claim if you believe that is true.

4. We can even accuse him of saying something which is confusing or odd, or of giving an odd definition of the word "allegory."

5. But we simply cannot accuse him of teaching all the words in the Bible are only literal in some "wooden" sense: because he clearly states the bible contains metaphor, analogy, and figurative language.


Conclusion:

1. If we disagree with someone, that is fine.

2. But before we ridicule them, let's first try to understand them, and take them IN CONTEXT.

..

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

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.

People tend to bring out the "2 Peter 3" card, without viewing/reading/studying the entire TWO CHPTS surrounding the Isaiah 34:4 singular verse they extract from it. I recommend doing so (reading, not extracting, lol)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Dispensationalists get mad as wet hens when their doctrines are questioned

So do those holding "Amill-teachings" and especially those who add "I *USED* to be pre-mill (and/or pre-trib) [before I became enlightened];"... one man I used to have convos with was vehement in his opposition (and downright nasty, at that) [and rarely even listened at all], until... finally I think he MAY have actually taken a look at the things I was coming back at him with, coz after that (Scripture itself having refuted his Amill-teaching viewpoint), he went silent.

 

[preston39]

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.

You are wrong.
What an attempt to spin;
Why are you pitting a symbolic image with .....fact statement of a commandment..... in the Bible?
We will give you the benefit of doubt for a minute;................... please define your word .... prophesy?

Please list allegorical statements in scriptures? Let us see if you and Bill O'Reilly are tracking each other.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Oh, and I have to say, too, for his having supposedly PREVIOUSLY been "pre-mill [and pre-trib]," he surely did not represent THAT "understanding [/viewpoint]" well at all... so it was no wonder he left it (he never really grasped it! [and that is what I am saying is the problem])

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

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

How would you... (for example) see my view of the afterlife as being "fuzzy," considering what I'd put in my Post #28 (first paragraph) about the parallel (time-wise) between Isaiah 24:21-22b[23] and Revelation 19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 ? (the FIRST of TWO "PUNISH" words in Isaiah 24:21-22b[23] paralleling this Rev19 context of His "RETURN" to the earth FOR the MK--With the SECOND of the TWO "PUNISH" words in that Isaiah 24:21-22b[23] context correlating with the LATER GWTj [the final carrying out of the sentence, so to speak, though the "kings of the earth" had died in the earlier [2nd Coming to the earth] point in time--and which Amill-teachings TOTALLY DISREGARD these TWO which are clearly separated by [a period of] "TIME")