John MacArthur claims "no allegories in Scripture" - dispensationalist delusions
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
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.
--Isaiah 24:21-22a[23] PARALLELS [time-wise] Revelation 19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 (His 2nd Coming to the earth)
--Isaiah 24:21-22b has TWO "PUNISH" words (one in v.21, the other in v.22b) separated by [a period of] "TIME"
--Amill-teachings completely disregard this period of "TIME" that will exist FOLLOWING His 2nd Coming to the earth [Rev19]… meaning, they completely DISREGARD "and after many days" (because there IS no more "days" in their scheme of things, at that point)
[Dan7:27 says the same... as does Rev20!]
--Isaiah 24:21-22b has TWO "PUNISH" words (one in v.21, the other in v.22b) separated by [a period of] "TIME"
--Amill-teachings completely disregard this period of "TIME" that will exist FOLLOWING His 2nd Coming to the earth [Rev19]… meaning, they completely DISREGARD "and after many days" (because there IS no more "days" in their scheme of things, at that point)
[Dan7:27 says the same... as does Rev20!]
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"
What book do you suggest to understand the essence of the dispensationalist argument? Don't answer "the Bible"
I think much of the following has value, on this subject:
Dr Paul Martin Henebury (aka Dr Reluctant [as in, 'Reluctant Dispensationalist']) -
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-first-twenty
[quoting from that second part/link]
"33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
"34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature."
[end quoting; underline mine]
Also, his few video on the same/similar subject (at YouTube, I think), on "allegorizing scripture" (start with his first one, as it is the foundational one, I would say--sorry that it's in video form, when you asked for a book
)[this is not to say I agree with him 100% on every point of all of his teachings, mind you... but I generally agree with his overall direction, here...]
Would also exhort you not to totally ditch dispensationalism merely b/c of the "allegory" accusations by some (from the disp camp). As I said, not all are like that (or hold to that idea)... and it's no reason to embrace another system with clear errors, just because of this (and the seeming way SOME dispensationalists "have no answers" to certain issues [not that I have 100% of said answers... but there are a lot that I DO "get"])...
EDIT: somehow I posted the links in the reverse order/sequence... so the quotes from it are from "the last twenty" (at the top/first link, instead of what I'd put)
EDIT: somehow I posted the links in the reverse order/sequence... so the quotes from it are from "the last twenty" (at the top/first link, instead of what I'd put)
I have read this several different times, and I think what you are proposing is that these verses present a long gap of time between the defeat of the enemies of God and their punishment. However, I believe you are reading this into the verses. Assuming the passages are talking about the end-time defeat of God's enemies, the phrase "after many days" could indicate many days have elapsed since the beginning of the rule of evil men until their eventual defeat, versus many days have elapsed since one punishment to a second punishment.
There are multiple examples in Scripture where one concept is explained, and then repeated again in a subsequent set of verses, especially in Hebrew writing. Sometimes it takes the form of a chiasm, which is very complex, and other times simply a parallelism, which is a simple repetition. So, I don't think your explanation here is conclusive and I believe you're starting with a presupposition.
However, I could be wrong on this. I am not convinced, though.
There are multiple examples in Scripture where one concept is explained, and then repeated again in a subsequent set of verses, especially in Hebrew writing. Sometimes it takes the form of a chiasm, which is very complex, and other times simply a parallelism, which is a simple repetition. So, I don't think your explanation here is conclusive and I believe you're starting with a presupposition.
However, I could be wrong on this. I am not convinced, though.
I'll advise you not to refer to amillennialism as a system with clear errors. Amillenialism is more credible for me than dispensationalism by far.
The idea that there are two separate people of God is abhorrent to me in light of union with Christ, and Eph 2:13-15. There is only one man, not two, and the Gentile is a spiritual descendant of Abraham, and entitled to the entire world, shared with their fellow seed, Jesus. This is clear from Gal 3 and Rom 4 too.
Just these simple points are enough to convince me dispensationalism is messed up. Essentially my understanding of Christianity circles around union with Christ. and dispensationalism simply clashes with that. I haven't examined historical premillennialism to see if it clashes in a similar manner, but I don't think it does. So, I haven't discounted it.
The idea that there are two separate people of God is abhorrent to me in light of union with Christ, and Eph 2:13-15. There is only one man, not two, and the Gentile is a spiritual descendant of Abraham, and entitled to the entire world, shared with their fellow seed, Jesus. This is clear from Gal 3 and Rom 4 too.
Just these simple points are enough to convince me dispensationalism is messed up. Essentially my understanding of Christianity circles around union with Christ. and dispensationalism simply clashes with that. I haven't examined historical premillennialism to see if it clashes in a similar manner, but I don't think it does. So, I haven't discounted it.
Not exactly; I'm saying that there are TWO "PUNISH" words [in the Hebrew] (and separated by "time")... One in v.21[22a (at His 2nd Coming to the earth time slot--see the parallel verses I provided]... the other in v.22b (THIS 2nd "PUNISH" word aligns with Rev20:11-15 [re: previously-DEAD ppl (incl'g those who DIED in that FIRST "PUNISH" word, v.21!/Rev19:21!)], the LATER GWTj--and this SEQUENCE also agrees with what Dan7:27 says!!)
Amill-teaching does not account for this, and completely disregards it!
Amill-teaching does not account for this, and completely disregards it!
I disagree with your thoughts that this is a chaism [I meant, parallelism, sorry! lol], because of the following:
--22a correlates with v.21's "PUNISH" (the FIRST one)
--then 22b is saying AFTER MANY DAYS (meaning AFTER the part A of THIS verse [talking about the "shut up in the prison" and the "pit" [death, for the "kings"] PUNISH point in time... followed by a TIME period, THEN the 2nd "PUNISH")
--22a correlates with v.21's "PUNISH" (the FIRST one)
--then 22b is saying AFTER MANY DAYS (meaning AFTER the part A of THIS verse [talking about the "shut up in the prison" and the "pit" [death, for the "kings"] PUNISH point in time... followed by a TIME period, THEN the 2nd "PUNISH")
[see here-->] https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/24-22.htm
this link was supposed to go with that post, lol
[22a goes with v.21 (the FIRST of TWO "PUNISH" words [occurring at Rev19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 parallel])... but 22b describes the SECOND "PUNISH" which FOLLOWS the "TIME" period which intervenes the two]
this link was supposed to go with that post, lol
[22a goes with v.21 (the FIRST of TWO "PUNISH" words [occurring at Rev19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 parallel])... but 22b describes the SECOND "PUNISH" which FOLLOWS the "TIME" period which intervenes the two]
OK..so one issue I would have is that I think it's an assumption to call them parallel verses. We aren't even sure Isaiah 24 and Revelation are referring to the same events.
Just a quick remark..in regards to the expectation the apostles had regarding a literal kingdom, the apostles held a number of wrong ideas including, for many years, the idea that Gentiles added to the church needed to observe the Mosaic Law. This wasn't really rejected until about AD 44. Additionally, I believe that the events of Acts indicate that Jesus, through union with the believers mediated by the Holy Spirit, was establishing his kingdom through conversions, and these conversions extended to various groups throughout the book of Acts.
However, the verse you referenced would be one of the stronger "proof-texts" of dispensationalism if I was looking for one. I think it's weak to depend on the apostle's understanding of a literal kingdom which would arise immediately to support a dispensationalist view. I believe their misunderstandings were gradually addressed as Acts played out.
I believe I'm going to finish studying some amillennial materials I have, and then read a few books that a dispensationalist pastor recommended to me in the past:
There Really Is a Difference, Renald Showers
The Greatness of the Kingdom, Alva McClain
He is a Grace Theological Seminary graduate. Additionally, a dispensationalist pastor from Moody Bible Institute referred me to Showers in the past.
It is really hard to nail down dispensationalists, though, because there are so many different variations within the dispensationalist camp. Like I said, it's like nailing jello to the wall to pin them down on much.
And, when it comes down to it, I know certain soteriological concepts are true, namely union with Christ, and dispensationalism simply doesn't work with that.
Presented with caveats [unmentioned]...
I think much of the following has value, on this subject:
Dr Paul Martin Henebury (aka Dr Reluctant [as in, 'Reluctant Dispensationalist']) -
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-first-twenty
[quoting from that second part/link]
"33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
"34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature."
[end quoting; underline mine]
Also, his few video on the same/similar subject (at YouTube, I think), on "allegorizing scripture" (start with his first one, as it is the foundational one, I would say--sorry that it's in video form, when you asked for a book )
[this is not to say I agree with him 100% on every point of all of his teachings, mind you... but I generally agree with his overall direction, here...]
I think much of the following has value, on this subject:
Dr Paul Martin Henebury (aka Dr Reluctant [as in, 'Reluctant Dispensationalist']) -
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty
https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-first-twenty
[quoting from that second part/link]
"33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.
"34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature."
[end quoting; underline mine]
Also, his few video on the same/similar subject (at YouTube, I think), on "allegorizing scripture" (start with his first one, as it is the foundational one, I would say--sorry that it's in video form, when you asked for a book
)[this is not to say I agree with him 100% on every point of all of his teachings, mind you... but I generally agree with his overall direction, here...]
However, the verse you referenced would be one of the stronger "proof-texts" of dispensationalism if I was looking for one. I think it's weak to depend on the apostle's understanding of a literal kingdom which would arise immediately to support a dispensationalist view. I believe their misunderstandings were gradually addressed as Acts played out.
I believe I'm going to finish studying some amillennial materials I have, and then read a few books that a dispensationalist pastor recommended to me in the past:
There Really Is a Difference, Renald Showers
The Greatness of the Kingdom, Alva McClain
He is a Grace Theological Seminary graduate. Additionally, a dispensationalist pastor from Moody Bible Institute referred me to Showers in the past.
It is really hard to nail down dispensationalists, though, because there are so many different variations within the dispensationalist camp. Like I said, it's like nailing jello to the wall to pin them down on much.
And, when it comes down to it, I know certain soteriological concepts are true, namely union with Christ, and dispensationalism simply doesn't work with that.
U
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
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
-
1
- Show all
Anyone thinking they have a definition of dispensationalyst needs to get in line.
I guess i am one,but get this,disagree regularly with "dispensationalysts"
You can't even say "great tibulation"anymore without having to clarify it as 7 yrs.
Reading what the nondispies write makes me proud to be somewhat of a dispie.
I guess i am one,but get this,disagree regularly with "dispensationalysts"
You can't even say "great tibulation"anymore without having to clarify it as 7 yrs.
Reading what the nondispies write makes me proud to be somewhat of a dispie.
-
1
- Show all
If he had said, there are no unexplained allegories in Scripture, perhaps I could go with that. But he simply says there are no allegories, and the word in Galatians 4 24 for "allegorically" is:
g0238. ἀλληγορέω allēgoreō; from 243 and ἀγορέω agoreō (to harangue (compare 58)); to allegorize: — be an allegory (the Greek word itself).
g0238. ἀλληγορέω allēgoreō; from 243 and ἀγορέω agoreō (to harangue (compare 58)); to allegorize: — be an allegory (the Greek word itself).
-
1
- Show all
I don't mean to speak for JM (though I do see merit in what a cpl other posters have said, since they DID read your OP link regarding what he'd said)... but I don't think ppl usually mean that "allegory" isn't mentioned in the Bible. I think they usually mean that "Scripture has ONE meaning, and ONE meaning ONLY"... so that IF a passage does not say that it is an allegory, then it is LITERAL and literally what[ever] it SAYS there.
As I already mentioned, not all "dispensationalists" hold to that idea... (and by that, I am not saying that everything is allegory with no literal meaning... or whatever). [I've already pointed out my take on 1Cor10:11]
As I already mentioned, not all "dispensationalists" hold to that idea... (and by that, I am not saying that everything is allegory with no literal meaning... or whatever). [I've already pointed out my take on 1Cor10:11]