Well we weren’t expecting John MacArthur to begin the conference this way. He decided to forego his usual opening sermon and speak instead on a touchy topic. His lecture was titled (and I’m not sure how much this is tongue-in-cheek) “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist.” A couple of weeks ago, at the Resolved Conference, he mentioned this topic so it was interesting to hear him fill it out.
Now I am going to be both cautious and forthright with this one. I am not as familiar as perhaps I should be with the end times. Rather than stick my neck out, I will give my best understanding of the most important points of Dr. MacArthur’s speech and recommend that if you want a fuller understanding, you should wait for the CD or MP3. I did not feel adequate to the task of really giving a full and definite summary.
The session concerned itself with sovereign election, Israel, and eschatology. Dr. MacArthur sought to answer questions such as does the end matter? Does it matter to God? Should it matter to us? The answer is that of course it matters to God and thus should matter to us. History is heading to a divinely designed and revealed end, and if it matters enough to God to reveal it, it should matter enough for us to study it. And yet we often seem to think that God somehow muddled the biblical discussion of the end times so badly that it is best to just concede the muddle and move on. Yet MacArthur believes that the hard work involved in understanding the prophetic passages is neither needless nor impossible. The tried and true rules of interpretation should not be set aside every time a person encounters a passage on prophecy.
MacArthur made the point that those who most celebrate the sovereign grace of election regarding the church and its place in God’s purpose and those who defend the truth of promise and fulfillment and believe in election being divine, unashamedly deny the same for elect Israel. This is a strange division. “It’s too late for Calvin,” he said,” but it’s not too late for the rest of you. If Calvin were here he would join our movement.”
The thrust of the message was simple: Of all people to be pre-millennialist it should be the Calvinist—those who believe in sovereign election. A-millennialism is ideal for Arminians because according to their theology God elects nobody and preserves nobody. A-millennialism is consistent with Arminianism. Yet it is inconsistent with Reformed theology and its emphasis on God’s electing grace.
For those who “get it” that God is sovereign and the only one who can determine who will be saved and when they will be saved and is the only one who can save them, A-millennialism makes no sense because it says that Israel, on their own, forfeited the promises. The central argument went like this: If you get Israel right, you will get eschatology right. If you don’t get Israel right, you will never get eschatology right and you’ll drift forever from view-to-view. You get Israel right when you get the Old Testament promises and covenants right and you get these when you get the interpretation right which you get right when you use a proper hermeneutic (Did you get all that?). Essentially, you move from a proper hermeneutic to a proper interpretation to a proper view of the covenant and Old Testament promises and then you get Israel right. And then, of course, your eschatology is right. If you go wrong at the base, and set aside proper methods of hermeneutics, you have no chance to get anything else right.
MacArthur shared that over the course of his ministry his views on eschatology have not changed despite constant exposure to the Word of God. Eschatology has had to stand the test of every New Testament verse and his conviction has been strengthened. The fair test of a cohesive eschatology is to drag it through every text. He has done this and feels that premillennialism has stood the test.
He then asked and answered four questions. Is the Old Testament A-Millennial? Were the Jews in Jesus’ day amil? Was Jesus a-mil? Were the Apostles a-mil? In all he cases he believes the clear answer is no. And this is especially the point where I am going to recommend you purchase the audio and listen in yourself. He offered plenty of Scriptural proof, but moved quickly enough that I was unable to capture it adequately enough that I would be comfortable posting it here.
He then suggested two effects of this improper eschatology. The first is that it leads to the trappings of Judaism infiltrating the church. This includes many of the battles the Reformers had to fight: a priesthood, infant baptism replacing circumcision, altars, and so on. The second is that evangelism to Jews is damaged because it is we cannot properly explain to Jews why their interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures is wrong. We end up having to say “you’re not God’s people anymore…” Unless you can tell a Jew that God will keep every promise and Jesus will fulfill every promise, your witness to them is damaged.
The long and short is this: Now that the Spirit of God is moving the church to recover the high ground in sovereign grace in election it is time to recover the high ground of God’s sovereignty in eschatology. If you get eschatology right, you can just open the Bible and preach what it says without having to go hunting for other interpretations. Get it right and Christ is exalted and God is glorified.
As I said, if this topic interests you, hold out for the audio. Whether or not you agree with the premise, you will be glad that MacArthur has planted a flag, so to speak. If he is right about the damaging effects of poor eschatology, this is an issue that should concern all Reformed believers.
Comments (70) »
1. Charles E. Whisnant
March 7, 2007
6:45 PM
This is the position that MacArthur has had for as long as I can remember. The more I view the other views, the more I am set on the pre-Millenn- alist. Looking forward to the audio. But his tapes on Revelation make all this clear.
Thanks
Charles
2. David
March 7, 2007
7:07 PM
As a staunch reformed Calvinist POSTmillennialist, I look forward to hearing what he said in that regard.
3. Mike Gilbart-Smith
March 7, 2007
7:24 PM
McArthur talked of 5 dangers of amillenialism.
1) Sacradotalism: he blames amillenialism for the adoption of old testament altars, priests, sacrifices etc into medievil Catholicism.
I suggest that their problem was nearer to the premillenialist problem of not recognising that the Old Testament is fully fulfilled in Christ.
2) Hampered Jewish evangelism
His suggestion was that unless we talk about a future material earthly kingdom of Israel, we cannot evangelize the Jewish people.
I would suggest that suggesting that Jesus is a means to achieve earthly blessings undermines evangelism that hold out heavenly rewards.
3) Scripture is for mystics.
He suggests that the Scriptures are unreadable for ordinary people if they are not to be read literistically.
I suggest that the texts of Scripture that apply Old testament promises to the new testament royal priesthood holy nation, chosen people become impossible for people to read, and the light they cast upon the Old testmant is cast into shaddow unless we see the promises to Israel to be fulfilled in Jesus, not an ethnic people of God.
4) Practical benefit of eschatology is released on people
He suggested that amillenialism is non-eschatological. There may be worldly amillenialists, but this is clearly not necessary to the position. The difference between an amillenial & premillenial eschatology is that the amillenial eschatological future is entirely heavenly, rather than this worldly for 1000 years.
I would add that the practical benefit of being able to read the whole Old testament and claim its promises for everyone who believes in Jesus is a wonderful pastoral deposit removed from the hands of many premillenialists who think the promises are not applied to beleiving Gentiles.
5) Dishonours Christ, millennial
He stated that the earthly millennial kingdom is the only possible bridge between an earthly state and a heavenly state.
What about the The cross and resurreciton of Jesus?
4. Stephen Jones
March 7, 2007
7:28 PM
Sounds like MacArthur used his home-field advantage and opened with a touchdown!
5. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 7, 2007
7:36 PM
This is one of those few areas where I must part company with Dr. MacArthur. I am still baffled as to why he holds to the view that he does concerning eschatology. He calls it pre-millennialism, but it still seems to look, act and walk like pre-tribulational dispensationalism.
I believe and hold that God has always had ONE people… and ONE redemptive plan…and that plan was ALWAYS to include Jew AND gentile.
And to say that a-millennialism is most compatible with Arminianism seems to me to be an inflammatory remark and makes no sense to me at all.
The last thing I’d like to do in this comment is refute what MacArthur says in this remark regarding evangelism to the Jews, “We end up having to say “you’re not God’s people anymore…” Unless you can tell a Jew that God will keep every promise and Jesus will fulfill every promise, your witness to them is damaged.
I would like to show from Scripture that God has already fulfilled EVERY promise He made to national Israel, and therefore MacArthur’s point above concerning evangelism to Jews is moot:
So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. Thus the land had rest from war. - Joshua 11:23
So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand.
Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. - Joshua 21:43-45
“And now the LORD your God has given rest to your brothers, as He spoke to them; therefore turn now and go to your tents, to the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave you beyond the Jordan.” - Joshua 22:4
6. Armen
March 7, 2007
7:37 PM
How can a man so long on the road be so foolish? Seriously, with all due respect I cannot see his argument holding ANY water with a man who knows his Bible but has a different end-time view.
Such a message when preached in such a manner will have two effects
i) MacArthurites will swallow it hook, line and sinker because they’ve respected his teaching for so long, therefore he must be right.
ii) Everyone else with any awareness will know that men who have a greater knowledge of the word of God AND of God himself, have held other views - surely there must be a reason why.
Plus the fact, he’s come out with crazy statements like,
“non-dispensational or covenant theology, has no place for Israel, no kingdom in the future, and essentially spiritualizes everything in prophetic literature rather than making it literal.”
Nonsense! I know of many non-dispensational pre-mills who hold his view on the coming kingdom, but aren’t ‘dispensational’.
I have NO set view as yet. However, of all the views Pre-millenialism seems the most unscriptural. It is a defeatest position that is looking for Christ to return to ‘fix’ everything, rather than a belief in the power of the gospel, recognising that Christ is reigning now and the gospel will prevail.
I think I will get this audio sermon too.
7. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 7, 2007
7:41 PM
I wanted to quote this one again for emphasis:
Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. - Joshua 21:45
8. Daniel H.
March 7, 2007
7:45 PM
I relatively recently converted to the amil position…
I’d have a least 2 questions:
1. Didn’t Paul already deal with the issue of the promises to Israel in Rom 9-11? I can’t recall a word in those chapters about any earthly kingdom, it’s all about salvation. In fact isn’t the reason God’s promises to Israel did not fail precisely (at least partly) BECAUSE not all Israel is Israel?
2. What of Jesus’ repeated statements that His kingdom is not of this world?
I might have to listen to that sermon though, MacArthur is always worth a hearing, and is usually right
9. Dr Mike
March 7, 2007
8:03 PM
Oh, to be young enough to still know it all!
Let me say that I am no follower of John MacArthur: I agree with him on some things and strongly disagree on others. But regardless of areas of difference, I respect him and appreciate both his integrity and his commitment to the truth of God as he understands it.
Apparently some here do not share my respect or appreciation; in particular, I notice that the sharpest comments opposing MacArthur’s eschatology come from young men. How is it that a man old enough to be a father of these young men can be so stupid and (apparently) contemptible? Must he have everything correct (“correct” = in perfect agreement with you) before he gets a pass?
There’s certainly a right to disagree with Dr MacArthur but it can be done without arrogance and unkind remarks. Is there no need to show respect to one’s (chronological) elders? Is there insufficient humility to assume that - whatever position you might argue and proofs you might offer - MacArthur has heard them, studied them, likely understands them better than you, and subsequently rejected them?
I am truly incredulous at times at the hubris, disrespect, and condescension of young people - until I remember that I was just as full of myself at that age. You appreciate God’s mercy and grace more as you grow older and begin to marvel that He didn’t strike you dead or mute long ago. Not for being wrong but for being so ungracious and unloving toward godly people.
You may not be able to believe it now but, trust me, you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do. I am amazed at how ignorant I am after 32+ years of walking with Christ. (Go ahead and take the cheap shot: it will only prove my point.)
Nobody has it all figured out and the older one gets the more true you discover that to be.
10. Daniel H.
March 7, 2007
8:11 PM
Tim,
Can you please remove my above comment? I’m not sure how to or if I can. Reading it again it comes across disrespectful and I definately didn’t mean it that way - Dr. MacArthur is a better man than I’ll ever be.
11. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 7, 2007
8:24 PM
Dr. Mike…
Are we reading the same comments on the same post? I have looked at the comments more than once, and see only one that I might question as disrespectful (and Daniel H., it’s not yours).
No one here is claiming to have it all figured out.
It appears you have taken offense at those who disagree with MacArthur, and other than the one post I see that I mentioned above, yours is the only one that appears to be coming from anger and disrespect.
I love and respect MacArthur a great deal, but disagreeing with him on the subject of eschatology does not equate to youthful arrogance or disrespect.
Thanks.
12. Jabbok
March 7, 2007
8:25 PM
I’m 50 years old so maybe I won’t be misunderstood as speaking with the rashness of youth when I say that I disagree with Mr. MacArthur and I have always been perplexed with his eschatology.
I’m not much on joining movements just for the sake of doing so and I doubt that Calvin would join this one either.
It’s interesting how the title of his sermon is a bit inflammatory and would be viewed as rude and insensitive if it was posted in this comment forum but since he was the one who said it we can view it as “tongue-in-cheek”.
My response is: Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
13. Armen
March 7, 2007
8:26 PM
Dr. Mike - With respect to you as a brother, I ‘think’ you’re getting the wrong impression. I would say that most of us have a respect for MacArthur and his views. However, what I don’t appreciate (and I think the others are the same) is his bold blast at every view but his own.
We’re not attempting to be disrespectful at all, and quite frankly although some of us may be young, there is no need to be so derogatory to us.
It’s interesting how the ‘mature’ of the church look at the bold statements of the young in a condemning manner, when Paul told Timothy, “…command and teach. Let no man despise thy youth…”
14. David
March 7, 2007
8:34 PM
Daniel H.-
I removed your comment because you asked, but I didn’t really think it was disrespectful. We’ve seen and tolerated a lot worse here! Thanks for being sensitive to that, though.
15. anon
March 7, 2007
8:37 PM
For an amillenial response to MacArthur’s opening salvo (with all due respect to the man, I appreciate his other ministry but his comments on this topic are just silly - Jewish DNA?!!!):
http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2007/03/life-of-unregistered-and-mocked.html
16. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 7, 2007
8:42 PM
Daniel,
I would like to request that you request your comments be reinstated. I agree with David…I don’t think they were disrespectful.
17. Josh
March 7, 2007
8:51 PM
Does anyone else remember MacArthur mentioning eschatology briefly during the very last Q&A session at Together for the Gospel? Someone asked him a question to the effect of “Where do we go from here?” and he responded that he would like to see broader agreement on eschatology. He said something like, “I don’t believe God fumbled the ending.” It was funny because it seemed to me that for that brief moment everyone on the stage squirmed a little bit. I guess that was the shot over the bow.
18. Greg
March 7, 2007
8:52 PM
As a regular listener to Dr. MacArthur, I have heard him speak on eschatology numerous times, and I have been fully persuaded of the truth of premillenialism for quite some time (because of his work and others’ as well).
I had heard people talking for a few weeks about how this was going to be something we would really want to hear. I was prepared for the usual MacArthur excellence, but didn’t think I would hear anything groundbreaking; after all, what was left to say about eschatology that hasn’t been said somewhere else?
But this message floored me. That’s one of the first times I have ever thought, “Even if I was of the opposite view, this message would have persuaded me to change.” It felt like he had put the best points from about 50 different sermons into one cohesive and devastating argument for premillenialism. His comments on Acts 1 were especially insightful.
You can tell this message had been on his heart for a long, long time. Some might wonder why he would open with something like this, but the reality is that this was his only general session during any of the three day times and as the conference “host” he really almost had to be the first speaker.
I think, then, that the message was appropriate, necessary, and convincing. I hope and pray that it will have the same impact on many others that it is having on me.
19. steve
March 7, 2007
8:54 PM
If you are pre-mil I would think you would have to be dispensational in one way or another. You have to at least admit to two dispensations - the one we are in and the millennial one. I think many people have a flawed understanding of what dispensationalism is.
Check out this link for some thinking material:
http://bibchr.blogspot.com/search?q=dispensation
20. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 7, 2007
9:03 PM
I think, then, that the message was appropriate, necessary, and convincing. I hope and pray that it will have the same impact on many others that it is having on me.
Greg,
I hope you will take some time to study the issue for yourself, and weigh what MacArthur said today in light of Scripture. For starters, how do you handle the Joshua passages I cited above?
I have read Jason’s post over at Fide-O, and it is worth reading and evaluating…including all those who agree with MacArthur on this issue.
21. donsands
March 7, 2007
9:05 PM
Pastor Mac is a strong willed premil preacher. I love that he has his convictions. And he surely is orthodox and could be right.
I agree that we need to study eschatology.
I’ve heard some say, “Well, I’m a pan-mil, it’ll all pan out in the end.”
And I disagree with this attitude. I love end times deabates. I should say i would love to see an eschatology debate among the “Big Guns”.
One thing I believe is clear, and Pastor John would disagree here, and that’s that the Scriptures teach that Christ will return but only once.
I do not see where our Lord, or Paul, ever taught a pre-return, and then the real return. I just don’t see it. I don’t see the Rapture.
Of course, there are ways to explain it, but it sure ain’t plain and simple.
One final return seems to be what the Bible declares as far as I can see. I’d be interested in John Piper’s view of historic pre-mil.
Maybe next time.
22. bob topartzer
March 7, 2007
9:17 PM
When I called this the “Militant Calvinist” conference I was right. Seeking to tie European Reformed and post Dort Calvinism to a Mediatorial Kingdom for the Jews?
To use the basis of so called Sovereign Grace aand Reformed theology as the basis for Pre millenialism is naive to say the least.
MacArthur is confused about the kingdom himself. He writes about the kingdom as being present in the church in some statements. He treats statements of Jesus in the Gospels as though they were regarding the present message to the church. and Gospel.
He may not fully understand the issues here. If the Kingdom is yet future and it is a mediatorial Kingdom that involves the O.T. Covenants such as the Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New, which are for Israel, then there was an offer and rejection of the Kingdom at Matthew 21, Luke 19 et al. This was a literal mediatorial kingdom. It is totally separate and not part of the church. It is Dispensational.
Then his book “The Gospel according yo Jesus Christ” needs to be rewritten. Jesus was speaking to the Gospel of the Kingdom and not the Gospel that had the content declared after Calvary. However, MacArthur has taken this Dispensational view to task in his books. Also, he would now see the plan of God as revealed in Biblical historical covenants and not in alleged Covenants of eternity past that are the hypothetical theory of Covenant theology and tied to the eternal Decrees of Post Dort Calvinistic development. Dispensational Calvinism is more tied to Biblical Theology and less philosophical. It no longer makes Sovereign Grace and Election as the important capstone truths of scripture.
MacArthur needs to stop trying to make Calvinism and election the foundation of his theology and either affirm Dispensationalism or affirm himself as a non Dispensational Historic Premillenialist like George Eldon Ladd. He should then resign from the IFCA. He is in disagreement with the IFCA declaration on salvation and the Gospel anyway (available at IFCA website). This would be the consistent thing to do.
I am not younger than MacArthur so please don’t say I am disrespecting my elders.
23. An SC Attendee
March 7, 2007
9:19 PM
I have read Jason’s post over at Fide-O, and it is worth reading and evaluating…including all those who agree with MacArthur on this issue.
No offense to Jason… Fide-O is a good site and Jason (& co.) are good guys. Nonetheless, the protests in his post come across more as an emotional knee-jerk (regarding a personal theological soapbox of his) than as a well-structured rebuttal to John MacArthur’s real arguments (which, for the record, were not based on Jewish DNA).
It is ironic that, in critizing John, Jason did the exact same thing he was accusing John of doing — painting John in the worst possible light.
For those of you who have not heard the message, perhaps you should wait until you do to critique it. Second- and third-hand critiques are hardly the stuff of honest inquiry.
At the end of the day, we all must examine the Scriptures to see if these things are so. At the very least, John MacArthur has done the T4G crowd a service by getting the conversation going.
24. Armen
March 7, 2007
9:29 PM
Steve - Historic Pre-mills generally wouldn’t consider themselves dispensational in a sense because they don’t believe that man was ‘saved’ or justified by various ways and means, it has always been through Christ and his sacrifice since the Fall.
I agree with donsands - to say that Christ will return twice (no matter what form you think it will be) is not found in the Bible (at least not in the A.V.).
Also, to say that Amillenialism dishonours Christ is laughable. Speaking as one who doesn’t claim to be A-mill, I would argue the opposite is true.
It’s all rather interesting!
25. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 7, 2007
9:33 PM
SC attendee…
Jason didn’t paint MacArthur in the worst possible light. All he did was respond to what Mac said today.
And I don’t have to wait to hear the entirety of today’s message to be able to critique MacArthur’s position. I am well aware of his end times view, and its weak Scriptural support (I held to it for most of my life and know it well).
If you want a well-structured rebuttal, let me start it by asking how MacArthur’s view holds up at all given that the land promises to Israel have long since been fulfilled as documented in the book of Joshua.
Thanks.
26. Bill Isley
March 7, 2007
9:50 PM
As to the DNA comment (learned second hand since I am not there), it is a plausible hypothesis that descendants of Jacob have a fairly unique identifying section to their DNA (not their total genome) given that some autosomal receessive genetic diseases (requiring both maternal and paternal copies of “the disease gene” to be present) are much more common in some Jewish groups. However, while this is plausible, I know of no proof of such an hypothesis.
Bill Isley, MD
Rochester, MN
27. Greg
March 7, 2007
10:23 PM
Brian,
I do not wish to become involved in a debate in the comments section here. I will simply shoot another branch off the tree of MacArthur’s message today and say that if every promise to Israel was fulfilled in Joshua, the words of the latter prophets and the New Testament regarding the coming of the kingdom are absolutely baffling. As MacArthur said in his message today, there is no doubt among anyone that the OT promises a future kingdom to Israel. The issue is a hermeneutical one and whether “Israel” means in reality what the original readers would have thought it meant.
I believe, especially after today’s message, it is quite clear that Israel does not mean the church. That was the key point of a good part of the message today, and that is the crux of the issue. If you do not agree on that, it is literally impossible to progress in discussing the matter.
And I think that’s the issue that everyone is going to have to wrestle with. At the end of the day, is “Israel” Israel or is it the church? Perhaps people will need time to study that or to evaluate their hermeneutics, but that is the key issue upon which everything else in the discussion rests.
(Note: I find it interesting that the issue of the rapture would even arise here. From what I remember, he did not even mention it apart from joking about “rapture movies”. The preservation and restoration of Israel does have implications upon the timing of the rapture, but that was irrelevant to the message today. He is simply concerned with whether there is a future kingdom for the Jews, pure and simple.)
28. Tim Graham
March 7, 2007
10:24 PM
Brian,
Thank you for the posts from Joshua 21. I’ve never considered them in considering whether the promises of God for the land had been fulfilled and had always assumed that since the promised land stretched from the Egyptian River to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18), that there is at least some sense in which God has not yet fully made good on His promises. Do you feel that they possess the land to the Euphrates as of Joshua 21?
Another difficulty that I have is that the land seems to be something that God would, in the future, give to Abraham and his seed as an eternal possession. Yet Hebrews 11:13 seems to be clear that Abraham hadn’t received the promise yet, but embraced it as “afar off.” Further, it says that when God gives this land to Israel, it will be an eternal possession (Gen. 13:15). Do you feel that Israel “possesses” the land from the Egypt River to the Euphrates at this moment? It looks to me, through my eyes of flesh, as though they don’t. So again, I wouldn’t say that God has made good on His promises (yet Joshua 21 says He has!).
Though in my 40’s, I am a relatively new pastor (in ministry 4 years now). I have never, until your post, wrestled with Joshua 21 and have always assumed that God’s fulfillment of the land promise was yet future. Can you help me reconcile Joshua 21 with what I’m seeing with my eyes? Could there be some sense in which God’s promises were fulfilled, while another sense in which they aren’t fulfilled? I’m reaching here, I know. But any help will be appreciated.
Tim
29. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 7, 2007
10:42 PM
Can you help me reconcile Joshua 21 with what I’m seeing with my eyes?
Tim,
Thank you for your comments and questions. Regarding the reconciling of what you see in Scripture compared with what you are seeing with your eyes, may I reply with a quote from A.W. Pink from his book, The Sovereignty of God?
“Are your thoughts, my reader, concerning this world and God’s relation to it, based upon what you see? Face this question seriously and honestly. And if you are a Christian, you will, most probably, have cause to bow your head with shame and sorrow, and to acknowledge that it is so. Alas, in reality, we walk very little ‘by faith’. But what does ‘walking by faith’ signify? It means that our thoughts are formed, our actions regulated, our lives moulded by the Holy Scriptures, for, ‘faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God ‘ (Rom. 10:17). It is from the Word of Truth, and that alone, that we can learn what is God’s relation to this world.”
Grace and Peace,
Brian
30. Jason Robertson
March 7, 2007
10:52 PM
Thanks to those who have commented about my post at Fide-O, including those who disagree with me. What I like about my reformed brothers is that we can disagree on eschatology and not break fellowship. Such has been the mistake of some in the past and that is a tragedy.
Of course, I disagree with Dr. MacArthur and have tried my best to be gentlemanly about it in my rebuttal at Fide-O. The nature of some of his tactics made it difficult to not sound tit for tat. I was only trying to inform my readers — not really have a debate.
If I were preaching in such a conference, I too would be just as passionate about my convictions. Thankfully I would not have to resort to such tactics. — I mean come on guys… I have a dozen men with me representing five states who spent hundreds of dollars to hear one of the best expositors in the world. But when it comes to defending his eschatology he begins by saying something like “I’m not preaching a sermon… but want to deal with an issue…” What?! That is the way most preachers started their sermons all over America last Sunday. That’s not what we came for.
31. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 7, 2007
10:53 PM
As MacArthur said in his message today, there is no doubt among anyone that the OT promises a future kingdom to Israel.
Greg,
Thanks for the comments.
You said there is no doubt among anyone as to a future kingdom for Israel. As you indicated, much needs to be defined here: what is meant by Israel, what is meant by a future kingdom, etc.
Do you believe that God has always had ONE redemptive plan for ONE people, both Jew and Gentile? In other words, was it always God’s plan to make both groups into one? Is this what was designed from the beginning?
Thanks.
32. Tim Graham
March 7, 2007
11:09 PM
Brian,
Thanks for the Pink quotation. I take it as a erudite manner of saying that you don’t know either. I am willing to relegate it to the realm of faith rather than of the realm of logical inquisition, but only after I’ve wrestled with it. As I said earlier, your post was the first to bring Joshua 21 to bear on my pre-millennial understanding. Thank you for it.
There’s enough here to keep both sides humble in our assertions. All the same, if you come up with any ideas for reconciling the eternal gifting of the land with the apparent lack of current possession (and the Hebrews assertion that Abraham had not received the promise), please e-mail me at tgraham@pitel.net as I probably won’t follow this thread beyond tonight.
Thank you,
Tim
33. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 7, 2007
11:18 PM
Tim,
I wouldn’t say that my response was my way of saying that I don’t know, but that I trust what I read in Scripture. If Joshua records that all the land promises were fulfilled, then I accept that they were fulfilled…regardless of what I see going on today.
I would like to suggest two books to you, if I may:
1. Kim Riddlebarger’s A Case for Amillennialism
2. Michael Horton’s God of Promise
Horton’s examination of the promises of God are exceptional (I just finished that book for the first time a few weeks ago…and I need to re-read it again and again).
Riddlebarger suggests this order of reading along with some other remarks concerning Mac’s talk today:
If you wish to be “fair and balanced” about these things, then I’d plead with you to first read Horton’s God of Promise, Hoekema’s Bible and the Future, and my A Case for Amillennialism, and then see if MacArthur’s arguments still hold water. It would be a shame if he gave such a talk and yet was not at all conversant with the major (Calvinistic) writers who set forth and defend the other side! Sounds like he is not.
34. Rich Barcellos
March 7, 2007
11:30 PM
“Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist.” I went to an internet dictionary and found this as a definition for self-respecting: proper esteem or regard for the dignity of one’s character. If I am a Calvinist and not premill, I do not have regard for my own character? Hmmmm. I am a Calvinist and not premill, but I can say for certain that if you are a Calvinist and premill, you may well be very self-respecting, and even more so than I.
peace-out
Rich B.
35. Tim Graham
March 7, 2007
11:33 PM
Brian, I didn’t feel that we were just dealing with a single statement in Scripture. We are dealing with several that, to me, have a seeming contradiction. For example, if God said, I will (future tense) give a land to you and to your seed and it shall be an everlasting habitation, can you confirm that your understanding is that this promise is fully fulfilled on the authority of Joshua 21? i.e. is your understanding that Abraham was “given the land” while he was dead? (Hebrews makes it clear that he didn’t get it while alive). If that is, by faith, your understanding, I would call that a solution. I’m just trying to pin you down on how you reconcile this.
At this point, my understanding is different (but always subject to change). My understanding is that Abraham will yet be resurrected and given the land… that this land includes the hevenly (as a matter of source, not location) “city with foundations” for which he waited.
Sorry that I cannot at this time commit to reading any more books… I was kinda asking in order to take a shortcut on my studies.
Tim
36. Rich Barcellos
March 7, 2007
11:33 PM
Oooops. Right after I posted, I received an email from someone who heard the sermon that denied the title as stated above. I should have been more patient. I still stand by what I said, even if the title is not as stated above.
Rich B.
37. Tim Graham
March 7, 2007
11:35 PM
… and, of course, my solution leaves me being unable to explain Joshua 21 at present.
38. Rey
March 7, 2007
11:40 PM
Yo Challies, I got a question that I’m dying to know:
After he finished: applause, amens or uncomfortable silence?
39. Greg
March 8, 2007
12:29 AM
Brian,
That is a loaded question, as I’m sure you realize. There’s much more there than a simple “yes” or “no” can adequately say. Therefore I will unfortunately have to decline your request to go any further with it. Take it for what you will, but I never meant to get involved in any discussion on this other than to say that I thought Dr. MacArthur’s message was very convincing, and I’ve been involved in one (or more) too many online debates to think that they result in solving problems, at least the right way.
Thanks for the thoughts on my comments. I’ll no doubt be studying Joshua 22 and other passages in more depth because of them.
40. Sharon
March 8, 2007
12:41 AM
Rey:
Mostly applause, several “Amen!”s and a noticeable absense of “uncomfortable silence.”
41. Sam
March 8, 2007
2:07 AM
There were many Biblical references used in the message brought today. I would suggest that everyone get MP3 of this and listen to him and take some notes on his stance.
His,
Sam
42. bobby grow
March 8, 2007
5:22 AM
Here’s how a Progressive Dispensationalist, like myself views the supposed one people of God and two people of God conundrum relative to God’s salvation history. The following is provided by Dr. Darrell Bock:
Two criticisms have tended to come from those of a more traditional form of dispensationalism. One is that the promises of the covenants are for Israel only. The second is to declare that allowing for such fulfillment means Israel and the church are not distinct, a supposed denial of a key indicator of what dispensationalism is.
Both criticisms are incorrect. The opening up of blessing through the seed to the world as indicated in the promise made to Abraham in Gen 12 means that God’s program always had the nations in view as coming into the blessed people fo God. Israel was to be a means through which such blessing came, which is precisely what happened through Jesus. This criticism also ignores God’s right to expand the beneficiaries as he wishes (as he does through Christ). God can add to his promise without taking away from those he made promises to earlier. So Gentiles can be included in Christ without Israel losing her benefits or promises. In this way, Israel and the church can remain distinct structures in God’s program (a dispensational distinction) without losing the oneness of God’s people Christ was called to bring accordng to Eph 2:11-22. (quote taken from:
http://dev.bible.org/bock/node/29)
I completely affirm the above as it provides the most adequate understanding of the Israel/Church distinction while maintaining the unity of God’s salvation history.
Brian said:
wouldn’t say that my response was my way of saying that I don’t know, but that I trust what I read in Scripture. If Joshua records that all the land promises were fulfilled, then I accept that they were fulfilled…regardless of what I see going on today.
It’s interesting if you go beyond the Josh. 21 passage you cite, like Josh 23:1-8 that even after Yahweh had indeed fulfilled His promise to give them the Land, it was still contingent upon their obedience to go in and actually take hold of their inheritance. In other words, Israel indeed had an inheritance from Yahweh, but they never TOOK POSSESION because of their covenant unfaithfulness (i.e. Mosaic Cov. see Josh 23:6-8). In other words the shalom spoken of in Ez. 36:24ff (esp. Ez 37) is a yet future reality. I don’t think your reading, or Horton’s reading for that matter, of the Joshua passage is as conclusive as you might think, Brian.
In Christ
43. Wake
March 8, 2007
7:13 AM
I’m glad he opened with this topic and I hope some Sovereign Grace folks were there to hear it and perhaps rethink their utter avoidance of eschatology in their teaching to their flocks.
The key is indeed the hermaneutic and unless one takes Scripture at face value and in its contexts, there is no hope for one to properly interpret a passage.
MacArthur makes this point well in a couple of his books… I think it was in ‘The Battle for the Beginning’ and ‘The Second Coming’.
44. Jeremy Weart
March 8, 2007
7:14 AM
When I became a Christian, at 19 years old, I started listening to preachers on the radio almost daily. MacArthur was one of my favorites. I remember going to his church way back in 1988 and thought I had died and gone to heaven. He has done much in the way of exposing me to good, solid and powerful expository preaching.
Over the years, however, I have noticed that MacArthur kind of thrives on controversy from time to time. He seems a little too rigid and dogmatic about things that have been battled over for millenia.
For anyone to say that THEIR eschatological position is the ONLY way is ludicrous. Brilliant and godly men have held differing positions for a long time.
MacArthur would be so much more effective if he would not make FLAMING statements and just stick to his guns. He is a wonderful preacher and I hope that more grace will come from him someday.
45. Richard
March 8, 2007
8:20 AM
Jereemy said it well. I too have listened to MacArthur for many years—and thank God for him. Unfortunately, statements such as he made at the opening of this conference is one reason I no longer listen to him when I hear him on the radio.
46. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 8, 2007
8:58 AM
I don’t think your reading, or Horton’s reading for that matter, of the Joshua passage is as conclusive as you might think, Brian.
Bobby,
I have yet to see anyone who agrees with MacArthur directly address the Joshua 21 passages I cited. Regardless of what Israel did after they were given the land…they WERE given the land…and Scripture is clear that ALL of the promises regarding land were fulfilled. I’ll quote it again:
So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.
MacArthur wants to talk about consistency and plain reading of passages…let’s talk about the plain reading of this one.
Tim Graham,
My ‘yes/no’ questions were not tricky, nor meant to be. I think they should be easily answerable. Here they are again:
Do you believe that God has always had ONE redemptive plan for ONE people, both Jew and Gentile? In other words, was it always God’s plan to make both groups into one? Is this what was designed from the beginning?
My answer is “Yes!”.
Grace and Peace,
Brian
47. Rey
March 8, 2007
9:11 AM
Hey thanks Sharon!
48. John H
March 8, 2007
9:13 AM
This includes many of the battles the Reformers had to fight: a priesthood, infant baptism replacing circumcision, altars, and so on.
Um, I thought the term “the Reformers” was normally used to denote the 16th century mainstream reformers of the church (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin etc.).
All of these saints supported the retention of infant baptism. Luther and those who followed him retained an understanding of the Lord’s Supper in which it could be called “the Sacrament of the Altar” (not because a sacrifice is performed there, but because the benefits of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice are received there).
Dr MacArthur may well disagree with the position the Reformers took, but to imply that the Reformers in fact shared his position in these isuses is to present an extremely odd account of church history.
49. Reg Schofield
March 8, 2007
9:21 AM
I have and still do have great respect for Pastor MacArthur and how he has defended the bible and the faith but on this issue I fully disagree.
I once held a pre-mil view but never a dispensational one. However ,aftering beginning to read all the text concerning the second coming, I realized something didn’t gel with a 2 or even 3 event coming. So I explored all sides and after all was said and done ,I find myself affirming the a-mil position.
But lets be cautious here. This should not be a divisive issue , nor one that should become a name calling topic. I have had many a great debate concerning this and many times we have a good laugh at the end , joking over certain views we hold but taking very serious the return of our Lord. That is the key . As long as one affirms that Jesus Christ will come again bodily to judge the living and the dead , that there will be a raising of the dead, that hell is real and a new heaven and earth ,we must allow for some charity .
Lst thought , I hope Pastor MacArthur will allow open discussion and freedom concerning this subject and not make this a main focus of his ministry going forward or I would be deeply put off his ministry .
To God be the glory….RWS
50. Ryan....at the conference
March 8, 2007
9:24 AM
Like Jeremy Weart…I relate to the growth gained from MacArthur in my early years.
I’ve listened to hundreds of his messages, and never do I remember him stating that “my position is the only way.” or “this is my own view.”
Rather, the words, “Scripture, scripture, scripture.” - from the Sproul/baptism debate.
At least I can attest that this man stands for what God has said. Plain and simple. He only beleives that the bible is clear and he beleives in what it says.
Ryan
51. Ann Addison
March 8, 2007
9:42 AM
I have found this audio series by RC Sproul to be most helpful. If you don’t purchase the whole series, I highly recommend the following messages: Literal or Figurative, This Generation, and The Beast. You can find the series at https://store.ligonier.org/product.asp?idDept=M&idCategory=TH&idProduct=LAS01MC
52. From years ago
March 8, 2007
9:47 AM
Regarding MacArthur and the IFCA:
I used to be an IFCA member. I did not renew my membership once I came to hold to a particular redemption view. I did this after calling and speaking with Les Lofquist (IFCA President). Les had pointed me to 2 Peter 2:1 as a passage cited in their Doctrinal Statement defending their view that the atonment had been made for everyone. I disagree with their view (I believe that passage to be speaking from the false teachers point of view, namely they had claimed to be followers (atoned for) but now they reject Him).
So I kindly did not renew.
Later I went to a Shepherd’s Conference (Maybe ‘01 or so) and asked MacArthur his view on 2 Peter 2:1 in a public Q&A. He stated the same view I hold to. I then spoke to him one-on-one and asked if realized that his view contradicted the IFCA Doctrinal Statement. He said ‘No’, I explained and said that if what I said was true, he would be in disagreement.
Later, I heard that the leadership of the IFCA met with MacArthur. I do not know if this is indeed true or not, but I was told that they came out of the room in agreement and MacArthur is still a member of the IFCA. And no… the IFCA Doctrinal statement did not change.
I do not know why he stays affiliated with the IFCA. He should join F.I.R.E. of which Phil Johnson (Grace to You) is a board member. (Check out F.I.R.E. at www.firefellowship.org)
Regarding the premill issue. I have not come down on a position yet. I have not studied it well. I am not Dispensational (though I had been for 20+ years), that has been determined. I find myself more in line with New Covenant Theology. I want to look into Historic Premill (Ladd, etc.).
I see so many things in the OT that are pictures of Heavenly things, such as the tabernacle, sacrifice, even death. Could it be that there will be an (non-dispensational version) earthly millenium that will be a picture of the eternal kingdom? These are thoughts that I think about every so often.
Because of God’s Great Mercy!!
53. Georges Larabie
March 8, 2007
9:55 AM
I appreciate John MacArthur very much but I can’t say I agree with Mr. MacArthur on this one.
54. Keith
March 8, 2007
10:00 AM
“A-millennialism is ideal for Arminians because according to their theology God elects nobody and preserves nobody.”
That description of Arminianism’s understanding of election is horrifically and completely wrong. At best, it’s a caricature and at worst it’s an outright distortion.
55. Rob
March 8, 2007
10:04 AM
MacArthur, Mohler, Lawson, Mahanney, Duncan, Dever, Piper and Sproul. Men I respect greatly for their lives and their impact on so-called evangelicalism calling us back to the Scripture and the Lord we love.
Perhaps what would be useful in this discussion MacArthur is wanting is if we ask them to state their eschatological views in a three views (or four views book), but with a difference. They first clearly state what hermeneutic they will use, drop any pre-understandings they may have, and back all statements up with a clear exegesis of the Scripture. Then as part of this book interact with each others views. I be the first one to purchase such a book!
56. Ann Addison
March 8, 2007
10:09 AM
I should have put a warning on my post (#50) above… so, here it is… “Warning! Messages contain historical facts and require logical reasoning skills. Proceed only if you are able to think clearly.”
57. Bob
March 8, 2007
10:15 AM
Be careful of the quicksand when trying to justify a comprehensive position with a couple of verses.
The old adage is true: “a text without context is just a pretext”
58. Todd Wood
March 8, 2007
1:57 PM
Thanks Tim for the update.
59. John Hendryx
March 8, 2007
2:11 PM
Tim
Let Macarthur know that the church did not replace Israel in Amillennialism, it expands on it. He is misrepresenting Amil eschatology by making this assertion.
60. bobby grow
March 8, 2007
2:16 PM
Brian,
you’re broadbrushing this topic. You didn’t deal with the fact that Joshua 23 highlights that the full possesion of the land is contingent upon Israel’s complete obedience to the “conditional” Mosaic Covenant. You didn’t deal with the fact that Israel in Ez 36—37 will indeed inherit the “Land”, proleptically, based upon the unconditional nature of the “New Covenant” (finding referent in the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant). Until you deal with these realities I’ll just assume you’re happy with making assertions in place of actual argument.
61. bobby grow
March 8, 2007
2:17 PM
btw, I’m no supporter of MacArthur.
62. John Hendryx
March 8, 2007
2:35 PM
To assert that in Amillennialism affirms that Israel has no place in the kindgom is the height of absurdity. We affirm that Israel is part of the body of Christ, we are co-heirs with them. I could just as easily turn it around and say that Dispensationalists, who say Israel and the church are seperate, believe the Israel is not part of the body of Christ and this makes Christ have two brides, rather than one. The land promises are expanded and we all, who are the seed of Abraham partake of the same promises, Jews and Gentiles alike. Because in Christ, the True Israel, we all partke of the same promises.
To say that any “self-respecting Calvinist” must believe premill is divisive - and to claim that it somehow points to some intrinsic Arminianism is beyond the bounds of acceptability as a statement. Not only has Amillennialism been misunderstood, but misrepresented. The Jews and the Gentiles are all part of the same body of Christ. No one has replaced anyone. Promise and fulfilment.
Amillenialism simply says that Jews and Gentiles will inherit the promises together, not that they have no part. Where do these thoughts come from?
63. Ann Addison
March 8, 2007
3:09 PM
John Hendryx, btw, love your site, Monergism. Thank you for your thoughts. You said, Amillenialism simply says that Jews and Gentiles will inherit the promises together, not that they have no part. Where do these thoughts come from?
In my humble opinion, most of the time, people bashing the Amil position have not applied any effort to understanding the position. I would encourage people to study the Amil position with their Bible open and a good detailed orthodox Amil argument before them. I have studied and hold to the Amil position, but have done so over so many years, I cannot think of what I would say is the best resource for studying the Amil position. John, would you give a recommendation?
64. Ralph
March 8, 2007
3:10 PM
Actually, separating Israel from the Church does not make Christ have two brides. Israel is the wife of YHVH (God the Father) as depicted in the book of Hosea. The Church is the Bride of Christ (God the Son).
Israel was promised land with specific borders and has never occupied all of the land they were promised. The Church has not been promised any specific parcel of land. In fact, the promise for the Church is that we will sit together with Christ in heavenly places.
65. Chris
March 8, 2007
3:29 PM
Hi Ann,
I’m not John Hendryx (although I sure use alot of his bandwidth) but these might help get you started.
The definitive work imho - Anthony Hoekema “The Bible and the Future”
http://www.monergismbooks.com/biblefuture8514.html
An excellent popular treatment (optomistic Amil) by Sam Waldron “The End Times Made Simple” (sorry not available on Monergism)
http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/3441/nm/End_Times_Made_Simple_How_Could_Everybody_Be_So_Wrong_about_Biblical_Prophecy
66. bobby grow
March 8, 2007
3:41 PM
I would recommend, A Case for Amillenialism by Kim Riddlebarger for anyone interested in the Amil position. It’s lucid and informative, and almost convinced me of the amil position—but not quite. I’m an Pre-mil, Progressive Disp.—for an amil not to recognize the distinction between Israel and the Church in Rom 9—11 is hard to fathom—exegetically that is. This text is built on the premiss that the “remnant” of ethnic Israel and the “fullness of the Gentiles” (the church) are distinct entities who have different “roles”, and thus promises, within the unfolding of God’s salvation history.
67. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 8, 2007
4:28 PM
Bobby,
That’s fine if you want to say that I am broadbrushing the topic…I would say that you avoiding the topic, as you have yet to address what is in Joshua 21.
As to your take on Rom. 9-11 teaching two distinct entities…I was say just the opposite. The gentiles are grafted into THE root…singular. There is only ONE people of God gathered through ONE redemptive plan.
Thanks.
68. bobby grow
March 8, 2007
5:15 PM
Brian,
I’m sorry, but you’re the one avoiding Josh. 21 and its broader context (i.e. Josh 23). I’ve highlighted the fact that the “LAND” covenant (Gen 17) is based on a conditional style cov (i.e. see Suzerian/Vassal treaty) that is contingent upon Israel’s end of keeping that covenant. Joshua in chpt 24 has a dire prognosis of their ability to do such—and the book of Judges bears this out. I also noted a distinction between an inheritance and “actual” posession or appropriation of that inheritance (Josh 21 would fall under the “inheritance”—God’s promise)—but Israel’s continued disobedience (i.e. see the rest of the OT) is a reflection of failure to appropriate this promise (i.e. go in and take the LAND—as Ez 37 speaks of yet proleptically). Please engage the conditional nature of the Land and Mosaic covenants as it applies to your assertion, or I’ll continue to assume you think assertion is synonymous with argument.
My view on the unity of God’s people is this (i.e. Rom 9—11): Two criticisms have tended to come from those of a more traditional form of dispensationalism. One is that the promises of the covenants are for Israel only. The second is to declare that allowing for such fulfillment means Israel and the church are not distinct, a supposed denial of a key indicator of what dispensationalism is.
Both criticisms are incorrect. The opening up of blessing through the seed to the world as indicated in the promise made to Abraham in Gen 12 means that God’s program always had the nations in view as coming into the blessed people fo God. Israel was to be a means through which such blessing came, which is precisely what happened through Jesus. This criticism also ignores God’s right to expand the beneficiaries as he wishes (as he does through Christ). God can add to his promise without taking away from those he made promises to earlier. So Gentiles can be included in Christ without Israel losing her benefits or promises. In this way, Israel and the church can remain distinct structures in God’s program (a dispensational distinction) without losing the oneness of God’s people Christ was called to bring accordng to Eph 2:11-22. (quote taken from:
http://dev.bible.org/bock/node/29)
69. Ann Addison
March 8, 2007
5:23 PM
Bobby Grow, thank you for the recommendation of Kim Riddlebarger’s book. I went to Kim’ blog and he posted about this today. Here is a link to the post http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2007/3/7/with-all-due-respect-to-dr-macarthur-.html
Kim gives several resource suggestions, also.
70. centuri0n (F. Turk)
March 8, 2007
5:58 PM
Yah, OK: Who is ready to separate over the kind of eschatology someone holds? I mean — aside from some of the “inerrantists” in the SBC?
It’s a serious question. As a great respecter of Dr. MacArthur, I have no idea what this Keynote address was about. However, I also think I am ready to wait for the transcript or the MP3 before I make any comments about the content.