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

For the record. I have gotten about 1/4 of the way through

The article is macarther speaking against what he claims are charismatic pastors. Taking literal words of scripture and making an allegory of them to make them say somethihg that it does not say.

Here is an example, of the preaching of jericho made into an allegory about men walking around a girl 7 times to break down her heart and marry him (this is evil I may add)

Taken from the article

Well, you use Scripture like some kind of story and make it mean whatever you want. This is an extreme example and I’ll never forget, I listened to this series…a young couple came to our church, I remember this so well. I remember the pastor who was talking to them and he came to one of our pastors to get counseling about marriage problems and he began talking to them and it was clear they should never gotten married. And this is not a match made in heaven.

So, “Why did you get married?” “Oh,” said the husband, “it was the sermon our pastor preached in our church.”

“Really, what sermon was it?”

“Well, he preached on the walls of Jericho.”

Walls of Jericho, what does that have to do with marriage?

“Well,” he said, “that God’s people claimed the city, marched around it seven times and the walls fell down.” He said, “If a young man believed God had given him a certain young girl, he could claim her, march around her seven times, the walls of her heart would fall down. So that’s what I did and we got married.” To which our pastor said, “That can’t be true, you’re kidding me, right?”

“No, no, that’s true. And there were many other couples who got married because of the same sermon.”

Can you imagine people circling girls? I mean, that’s enough to scare you, ladies. Talk about stalking, about the third time around you’ve got to get out of there. Some people think marriages are made in heaven and some are, but that’s a marriage made in an allegory.

Yeah

And you took him completely out of context.

Sorry bro, You hurt your own case.

Well, we have one thing in common..MacArthur isn't my authority either, because he's a dispensationalist.

By the way, someone told me that I was headed for confrontation by questioning dispensationalism, and that I would be attacked. And they are right lol.

I find this hilarious and I will plainly tell you guys I don't have time to answer every one of your attacks. I gave you a link to MacArthur's own website with his own words.

I find this analogous to taking a bottle away from a greedy, hungry baby. This doctrine brings out some of the worst behavior in people. I think it's because they know they can't defend it very well.

For example, the pretribulation rapture is totally ludicrous. It is obvious that the Scriptures they are using apply to the resurrection at Jesus' return, and are not related to a pre-tribulation event.

Show me how I took him out of context. He said that there are no allegories in Scripture. Pretty plain statement.

If I took him out of context, show me how this occurred.

I am not attacking you man

I am just tryign to help you understand what we believe

If you want to continue to be left in the dark thats on you. But I am not the one doing the attacking here.

If you think you are being attacked, you might as well leave, Because you can not learn anything

Oh I will not argue with you but beware,you will be attacked. I'm done with all that! God is the ONLY righteous judge for He sees the motivation of the heart. We are all free to believe or disbelieve,it's OUR own salvation!

I posted a part of his article man

Its there for everyone to see.

Can you show that you are teachable. Or not?

Except, it is VERY CLEAR that Isaiah 24:21-22[23] (which PARALLELS the TIMING of Rev19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 [i.e. His Second Coming to the earth]) shows TWO "PUNISH" words SEPARATED by a TIME PERIOD that Amill knows nothing about (and NEGATES, in their teachings).

And it is also VERY CLEAR that the Grk word for "THEN" in 1Cor15:24 ("THEN the end" ['cometh' is not in the Grk text]) is a DISTINCT "THEN" word (different from the one, say, in 2Th2:8, for example), and is a "SEQUENCE" word [ONLY] with NO time-element attached to it, so that 1Cor15:24 is saying "THEN [sequentially] the end" (NOT "THEN [IMMEDIATELY] the end"!) The first two items in this LIST of SEQUENTIAL things, are some 2000 yrs apart, so having the THIRD LISTED item be 1000-yrs after that, is NO PROBLEM!

["THEN [sequentially, not "then immediately"]

Too bad "Amill-teachings" twist so many, though.

Here's a post I made about some connecting points (with regard to the Seals and so forth):

[quoting that post (in part)]

⦁ parallel with SEAL #1 (the rider of the white horse, with a bow [very often representing 'deception'], at the START of the 7-yrs, the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time period that Revelation 1:1 speaks of, regarding the "FUTURE ASPECTS" of that Book [see also 4:1/1:19c compared with 1:1; and 7:3 compared with 1:1 (this means that the SEALS='the beginning of birth PANGS [plural]' [Jesus referred to] all take place 'IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]' (i.e. in the '7-yrs'/2520-d)]); and [...]

So...
The SEALS = "the beginning of birth pangs [plural]" in Matt24:4-8/Mk13:5-8/Lk21:8-11
[and] SEAL #1 = the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" i.e. Matt24:4 / Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'" at the START of the 7-yr period; at the ARRIVAL of "the DOTL" time period (aka INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" of 1Th5:2-3 / Matt24:4 / Mk13:5... aka the "whose COMING/advent/arrival/presence/parousia" of "the man of sin" IN HIS TIME [parallel the "prince THAT SHALL COME" Dan9:26 / Dan9:27a "...for ONE WEEK [7 yrs]"]).

See the connecting-points of the START of the 7-yr period?

[end quoting]

Matthew 25 portrays the separation of the sheep from the goats at Jesus' return. The sheep go into glory, the goats go to punishment.

What is ambiguous about this?

Do you place greater weight on clear Scriptures rather than the admittedly apocalyptic, symbolic language involved with Revelation?

How do you account for the fact that Rev 11 ends with the return of Christ, and Rev 12 begins with an event that happened at his birth? If it is a sequence of events like dispensationalists typically believe, why is it out of sequence?

I cannot take dispensationalism seriously because it seems like it's adherents are clasping their hands over their eyes on these issues. In fact, I would characterize myself as roughly dispensationalist in the past, and I was doing that myself. It's like they aren't even aware these problems exist.

The "Sheep [/the "ye BLESSED" / the "righteous"] will enter the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom (promised to ISRAEL--these are the "guests [plural]" [Gentile nations [plural]"] who THEY will have INVITED all during the trib yrs, having THEMSELVES also come to faith within the trib years [FOLLOWING our Rapture]).

This is the distinction shown between Matt22:7 (<--regarding the 70ad events), and v.8's "THEN SAITH HE to his servants" (necessarily "SAID" AFTER the 70ad events; which is what I'm pointing out in my post just above this, and as ALSO indicated by Lk21:12's "BUT BEFORE all these [BEFORE all these "beginning of BPs just named]" then spells out how the 70ad events must come first..., including the "shall be led away captive into all the nations" part).

"Nations" are on the earth. This (Sheep and goats) is not a RAPTURE passage

It is your OP and your concept of Dispensationalism that is totally ludicrous. We are not attacking you as a person but the NONSENSE AND BALONEY that you have started posting (as seen in the above quote).

You do not even understand that the Resurrection/Rapture is ONE SINGLE EVENT and is NOT related to the second coming of Christ, for the simple reason that at the second coming Christ comes WITH HIS SAINTS AND ANGELS from Heaven for the battle of Armageddon, and then the establishment of His Kingdom on earth.

So you have two options (1) be willing to be educated about this subject or (2) continue to promote your anti-pre-trib-Rapture and anti-Dispensational propaganda and have it exposed as such. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

So, are you saying that you believe the righteous at Jesus' return go into the Millennium as physical human beings rather than being glorified? It says in the passage that they receive eternal life. Additionally, according to the end of I Cor 15, death is defeated at the resurrection, and this occurs at Jesus' return, therefore death cannot occur after that point in time. This doesn't leave room for a Millennium where death continues to be a factor.

No. And how can you say that, given what I just pointed out about what Isaiah 24:21-22[23] says which AGREES with Rev, and also 1Cor15:24... and that's not even getting into how both Dan7:27[following the specific time period named in v.25] shows "the greatness of the kingdom UNDER the whole heaven" (not "UP IN Heaven") ALSO agrees. Amill-teaching disagree with these!

I don't believe it is talking about "His birth"... I'll go grab a post I made in a different thread earlier today... but basically, I believe it correlates with Micah 5:3's "UNTIL" (whereas Micah 5:2 IS referring to Jesus' birth), and how Rev12:13 says "the male [G730]" (no "child" word is in this verse)... [brb, I hope]

"Death" is defeated any time there is "resurrection" (which is not just one point in time, but a few); and I would say also by means of "THE LIFE" (Jesus Himself, reigning throughout the MK, where "AND he that LIVETH and believeth in Me, SHALL NEVER DIE. Believest thou this?" BOTH! [prev. v. re: those who may DIE first]) So, but in 1Cor15:51-54's "THIS corruptible," and "THIS mortal," this is speaking SPECIFICALLY of "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (at our "change" [both of the DEAD in Christ AND the we which are ALIVE and remain unto...]).

Yes, I believe the Sheep (Matt25) will be "still-living / mortals" who will ENTER the MK (capable of bearing children/reproducing), but that the John11:26 thing will be applied (BY HIS POWER / REIGN [Who IS "THE LIFE"])

"I go TO PREPARE" does not seem to be speaking of the same thing that "HAVING BEEN PREPARED for you FROM [apo] [not 'BEFORE [pro]' as is used of others elsewhere] the foundation of the world"

P.S. please do not think that by my "caps" and "bold" and so forth, is indicative of some form of "attack,"... I just use those for emphasis regarding oft-overlooked items, that require such. Thanks.


EDIT: always having to go back through the posts, coz I can only realistically cover "one point at a time" (since one point covers volumes, lol)... so my apologies for my choppy responses

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

The problem really isn't so much the particular view (dispensationalism), it is in the fact that few of them (dispensationalists) are actually grounded in what Scriptures are conveying, so they HAVE no answers/responses to those coming at them with [the differing viewpoints]. But to embrace OTHER views that are clearly incorrect, is not the solution.

There no "problems" that exist (there's always going to be some minor point no one can figure out, and I'm not referring to that)... only "PERCEIVED" ones, that someone who hasn't been well-taught, or well-studied isn't going to have a good response for, thus they fall for the other viewpoints that SEEM to tackle them... (key phrase: seem to).


Now, didn't I say I'd go retrieve a post I made today in another thread (I forget! LOL) ?

OK..so since you understand union with Christ, I will assume you are reasonably informed.

What book do you suggest to understand the essence of the dispensationalist argument? Don't answer "the Bible"