Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 1 [John MacArthur]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-334.htm ^ | 2007 | John MacArthur

[Blogger]

Such a belief is not inconsistent with dispensationalism. I can not stress enough. There are not two different ways of salvation. All is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. The one difference is that dispensationalists (and probably some non-dispensationalists) believe that the promises that God made concerning the land of Israel will be literally fulfilled as well. He brings remnant and non-remnant Israel into the land, gathering her from the nation. But it is Abraham’s seed both physically and spiritually that will ultimately inherit the promise.

[blue-duncan]

Twice during the sermon Peter mentions that god promised not to leave Jesus soul in hell along with not letting His body suffer corruption. but he says David’s body is still in the grave to that day and he, David, has not ascended into the heavens. He is not just referring to the bodily resurrection but the whole man body and soul and he is saying that David has not ascended, body or soul., otherwise why is it necessary to mention soul if all that was needed was to affirm by the witnesses that Jesus was raised bodily and ascended bodily?

Acts 2:27, “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

Act 2:31, “He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”

More proof that David was not referring to himself but to Christ, or more clearly, bodily resurrection.

Peter did not go to the point of being extremely doctrinal in his speech. That is all it is.

Example: In one of Johnathan Edwards’ books he referred to the Lord’s supper as the body and blood of Christ. Being a Presbyterian he would know that it is symbolic but from his words one might believe he was a Catholic.

Peter did no different, trying to keep his sermon clear of “technical” doctrinal points.

David has not ascended into the heavens but Christ did bodily. That is the point.

[Lee N. Field]

But in both cases they would deny the actual thousand-year reign of Christ and they would deny that Christ will reign and rule on earth and literally fulfill all His promises to the nation Israel given in the Old Testament covenants.

Always, always the confusion about Israel.

Let's turn this on it's head. I'm currently reading Oswald Allis' Prophecy and the Church, subtitled "an examination of the claim of dispensationalists that the Christian Church is a mystery parenthesis which interrupts the fulfillment to Israel of the kingdom promises of the Old Testament", published in 1945.

If Allis is correct (he documents profusely) Darby and Scofield, and their descendants and followers, have a really, really hard time dealing with the Church. They see Israel according to the flesh in places where they should see the Church.

McArthur calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist". Good. The leakier the better.