Clarence Larkin wrote “The Greatest Book on Dispensational Truth in the World” (which I think is an accurate title; more accurate than you could imagine). On page 96 of that book Larkin explains the conclusion of Dispensational Millennialism, “From this we see that the “Millennial Dispensation,’ like all the six Dispensations before it, will end in failure. God will have tested man… finally under the influence of the ‘Holy Spirit,’ free from Satanic influences, and… he will prove himself to be hopelessly, incurably and incorrigibly bad. If after a 1000 years of the presence of the King, and of universal peace and blessing, man still persists in rebelling against his Maker, what will there be left for God to do? …He promised Noah that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood of waters. But something He must, so He is going to purge the earth with Fire.”
According to Larkin, Dispensationalism teaches that both the first advent and second advent of Christ were failures. Neither advent successfully established the Lord’s Kingdom. Eventually God’s efforts of redeeming mankind just stop. God cannot win though He has tried seven different ways so He just destroys His creation!
Friends, I encourage you to study other systems of eschatology rather than Dispensationalism. Seek out what the church has historically believed.
Let me quote Mark Dever’s New Testament Commentary on Acts (from a two volume commentary set called **“Promises Made. Promises Kept.”) Mark is a Covenant Theologian and an Amillennialist (proven here) and he summarized Pentecost this way, “At Pentecost, Peter argued from Old Testament prophecy as well as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that Jesus uniquely fulfilled the promise for a Messiah. And Jesus the Messiah came to bring in the kingdom of God, that is the rule and reign of God (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). That is the good news! (Acts 5:42; 8:12, 35; 10:36; 13:32; 17:18). God fulfilled his ancient promise to redeem a people for himself. jesus cam as the Savior, that is, a bringer of salvation (Acts 4:12; 5:31; 13:23, 26; 15:11). And Jesus will come again as Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42; 17:31; 24:25).”
Mark Dever continues, “The world is Jesus’ mission! In the plan of God, the church becomes the new Israel. This does not mean God’s “A” plan had failed, forcing him to move to plan “B.” God had always planned for Israel to be the seed that falls into the ground, dies, and is transformed for the blessing of the nations (cf. John 12:24).”
Dever outlines how that God’s plan from the beginning was to glorify his name in all nations. God promised Abraham that his seed would be a blessing to all nations. And Dever correctly points out that Jesus is that seed (Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16). Even in the life of Jesus, before the events recorded in Acts, the ministry of Jesus and his followers had surrendered much of its “Jewishness.” Dever uses examples like the Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5-13) and half-breed Samaritans (John 4) to prove that Jesus’ kingdom had already begun to go “other nations.”
Dever noted in his conclusion that people in the first century had difficulty understanding that the Son of David was also the suffering servant. How true! And today many evangelicals have trouble understanding that the Son of David sits on his throne and King of kings and Lord of lords, and his kingdom is spiritually manifested through His church! He came the first time as Victor and will return as one as well!
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven!
[**Mark Dever's "The Message of the NT: Promises Kept" explains how the New Testament is the story of how all the promises made by God in the Old Testament were kept--and what that means for us today. The nation of Israel had many hopes: hope for a deliverer, hope for restored fellowship with God, and hope for the world to be put right. The New Testament explains how those promises were kept and how, if we are Christians, they are kept in us as well. Mark Dever surveys the historical context, organization, and theology of each New Testament book, in light of God's Old Testament promises. His message is that of the New Testament itself, one of hope fulfilled.
The ironic thing is that the forward is by John MacArthur. MacArthur declares Dever's survey of the NT to have amazing clarity and accuracy. Yet, MacArthur's 2007 Millennium Manifesto attacks the very premise, purpose and conclusion of Dever's commentary. Which is it? Accurate or not? Should Dever be a self-respecting Calvinist or not?
I believe that Dever got it right! God made promises in the Old Testament and kept them in the New Testament. Jesus came in victory -- suffering yes, but victory indeed! I find any eschatology that teaches otherwise to be wrong... and it inevitably causes one's soteriology and ecclessiology to be wrong as well].
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Thanks, Jason; Amen especially as to your concluding sentence. While I haven’t read Dever’s book, I’m quite familiar with Peter’s citation of Joel in Acts 2, James’ citation of Amos 9 in Acts 15, and Paul’s citation of Isaiah 55:3 in Acts 13. Insistence upon literal/grammatical/historical interpretation of, eg., Amos 9 despite Acts 15 is beyond perplexing!
Having just read all but 63 of 375 pages of O. Palmer Robertson’s abridged (!) THE CHRIST OF THE PROPHETS, I strongly recommend it; notwithstanding Dr. Robertson’s imposition of CT error which precludes recognition that the harlot was divorced twenty-seven centuries ago and stoned nearly twenty-one centuries ago, he incomparably delineates how the prophets “flesh out” how indeed our Lord has redeemed His elect ACCORDING TO PLAN {Goldsworthy “up” next [after I finish Schreiner's NT Theology (only 665 of 866 pages to go!)]}.
Jason
Since dispensationalism is not just one flavor, do your concerns extend to Progressive Dispensationalism, (Bock) for example?
Jason,
Are you joking with today’s post? Why do you continue to quote dispensationalists from 1918?
Larkin’s book is so ancient and certainly does not communicate dispensationalism even of the last 50 years. I’m trying to see how your quoting of dispensationalism is responsible? It would be more fair to quote those like John Feinberg, Alva McClain, Paul Feinberg, Saucy, Blaising, or Bock, or even Mike Vlach from Master Sem.
Personally, I’ve lost desire to interact because of the frequent mischaracertizing of the view you are critiquing. I personally have studied and continue to study your view from the likes of Hoekema, Waldron, Riddlebarger, and others (like amill commentators). While I continue to disagree, it has been a sharpening experience.
That is what drove me to interact with you. I hoped I would learn something new and be sharpened a bit. Anyhow, thanks for the interaction.
Blessings.
from what i understand, there’s a lack of consistency across the progressive dispensationalist spectrum.
Riddlebarger (A Case for Amillennialism) and Poythress (Understanding Dispensationalism) really only interact with classic, Ryrie/Scofield Dispensationalism. With the exception of a few pages in Poythress’s jam.
It’s almost like critiquing New Covenant Theology as a whole. There’s a few common denominators but if you try to critique the whole system, SOMEONE is gonna say “Why, I don’t believe that good sir! You have mischarachterized my position!”
Eh?
[AHEM!]
Old classic dispensationalism, the stuff Oswald Allis wrote against 50 years ago, is alive and well in the churches.
Jason,
I took your advice and got the Millennial Manifesto. Waldron talks about MacArthur quoting Allis, Hamilton and Boettner in his message and says this:
“The works of these three authors were written in 1945, 1942, and 1958, respectively. I think it is legitimate to respond to the citation of such dated material by asking this question: How would MacArthur like it if I cited the old Scofield Reference Bible or the Classic Dispensational authors and assumed that he held their position? He would think, and rightly so, that this is quite unfair. Similarly, we think the same thing when after all the development in the defense and articulation of Amillennialism over the last fifty years, these books that are 62, 65 and 49 years old are quoted as representative of our position.” (26).
Just for fun,
Jesse
The major difference here is the intention of the message. MacArthur was trying to prove that Calvinism was essentially premillennial. My intention is to blog about the different views of eschatology. I have blogged about many different eschatological views and about views from different eras in church history.
For me to ignore Larkin would be silly. But I did not say that all Dispys believe what Larkin believes. MacArthur on the other had made sweeping generalities about amil/postmil.
Jason robertson wrote,
“MacArthur on the other had made sweeping generalities about amil/postmil.“
You lament about individuals making “sweeping generalities” but just a few days ago you made the following most absurd sweeping generality:
“[Yes] I studied the Prewrath view and found it seriously lacking biblical continuity. It denies the New Covenant, it denies the kingdom of God, it denies the glory of the exalted enthroned Christ, it denies the Book of Hebrews, it denies the Gospel of John, it denies the Book of Romans, it denies the sermons of Peter in Acts, and it completely interprets Revelation wrongly for it doesn’t even understand that the “wrath” described in Revelation is a covenantal wrath against the covenant breakers of old Israel and was poured out upon it in the first century just as Jesus promised.”
Alan,
I am sorry that you thought my comments were generalities. I thought I was very specific in that my complaint was not against all premillennarianism for I specifically mentioned the Prewrath view.
Furhermore, I listed the specific points of theology and books of the Bible that I believe it completely misunderstands.
This is a blog, not a sermon or a book. So I am sorry that I didn’t go into more detail in my blog post.
I hope that Massimo will check out the 3-4-4 charts (see “Dogeared” at right) and “posts” from March 2007 (see “bones” at right) if s/he* hasn’t already done so.
* I assume HE, but, since I don’t know so, … .
Lee’s quite right, btw; indeed, the General Assn. of Regular Baptist Churches is regressing to classic dispensationalism (at least such is consistent … albeit consistently absurd).
Jason certainly doesn’t need my help; nevertheless, the sub-issue which is the subject of the quotation of Larkin isn’t one which varies as one’s dispensationalism becomes progressive (“leaky”).
That was the sound of the nail being hit right on the head.
Thanks Jim.
Jason,
I don’t know if you are still reading this thread, but it seems more appropriate here then a thread about a “break” from end times stuff:
I’m done with Waldron’s book, and have another question for you as I am trying to understand Amil thinking. You deny the idea of replacement theology, because you see the promises given to spritual Israel, and you see the church as the continuation/expansion of spiritual Israel. Is that correct? I think the reason a dispy might call that “replacement” theology (other than countless Amil writers using phrases like “Israel is replaced by the church”) is b/c we see the promises as being given to national Israel- not Spiritual Israel. So, to us, the Amil view replaces promises to ethnic Israel by seeing them fulfilled not by ethnic Israel at all, but by the church. That to us sounds like ethnic Israel was replaced.
I understand the butterfly analogy, but for the metaphor to work for me, the catapillar is not the remnant w/in Israel, but ethnic Israel. In other words, the catapillar is still crawling around, while the butterfly is flitting.
That is why I have way more sympathy for an amil view that at least sees a future for ethnic Israel (which Waldron says is the majority Amil view, although not his). The difference is that I see that future in a Kingdom, while Amils see it just before the return of Christ. How am I doing? Does what I just typed misrepresent Amils?
Thanks for your time,
Jesse