Required Listening!
Why Every Self Respecting Calvinist Should Know the Difference Between Israel after the Flesh and The Israel after the Promise
This may be enough to make me shell out a few bucks to download something!
The Narrow Mind with Gene Cook welcomes Jason Robertson of Fide-O and Larry Brooks to discuss John MacArthur's attack on amillennialism and his and other dispensationalists inaccurate understanding of Israel. The show is in two parts, each an hour long and well worth the time in takes to listen. There is the option of downloading a lower quality free file or paying .98 to get a high quality one. I downloaded and listened to the low quality one while working outside today, and thought it sounded fine. The really great thing about the discussion was how saturated with the Word of God it was, in context and shown in light of the whole counsel of God. The guys had it right, if you don't get Israel you don't get eschatology. The Old Testament is about shadows and types of Christ to come, and then the fulfillment is in Christ. Earthly, temporal sacrifices done away with by a permanent, perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God. The earthly temple where those imperfect sacrifices were performed is replaced by the indwelling. The temporal promises of an earthly Jerusalem are replaced by an infinintely better heavenly Jerusalem. Why would any self-respecting Christian (to borrow the phrase) want to go back or encourage anyone else to go back, to the old ways?
3 comments:
Thanks for the kind words.
Looks really interesting... I will have to take a look, especially after the Shepherd's Conf. fiasco...
Truly sad, he was one of the only dispies that I had respect for because his unabashed union with Reformed folk... said thing...
It seems dispensationalists have the same problems the Jews of Christ's time did...
Me too, I always liked (and still do) much of MacArthur's stuff. Heck I use his study Bible alongside Sproul's and we use his material at my church in Sunday school. It has never been my issue that he is a dispensationalist, but rather that the way he chose to couch his argument was inflammatory and intellectually dishonest. I keep meaning to write about it, but I haven't had the time.
Post a Comment