MacArthur comments further on his ‘controversial’ message
This morning John MacArthur answered some questions during the Q&A Session, specifically relative to his message on eschatology.
MacArthur reiterated his desire to bring eschatology out of the periphery of the Reformed circle and help aid faithful cross-boasters to likewise anticipate the coming Savior. He admitted that his goal yesterday was not so much to answer questions but to raise them. He wanted to hear people talking about the eschatological issues.
One point that I did not note yesterday but wanted to relate to those who are not attending this conference is the issue of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. If the meaning of the OT prophetic texts were not known until the NT was written then we have a serious problem with the perspicuity of the Scripture. MacArthur quoted Kaiser who said that at that point “we would have a cannon within a cannon.” I believe this is a key point. There is little dispute that the OT writers and people were not A-mil, so what has changed? How did Jesus change the biblical understanding of the kingdom? The Jews were looking forward to a literal kingdom with a literal nation and a literal king. This is why Jesus was asked the question in Acts 1:
Acts 1:6-7 “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
As MacArthur noted, these guys had just spent forty days getting the best seminary education available, and then at the end they ask if the Kingdom was coming at that moment. And as MacArthur said, this would have been the perfect time for the Savior to let everyone know that this was no longer the plan or that they had misunderstood the plan all along.
One point that has ignited a significant amount of chatter is the application or the dot-connecting that MacArthur has done. As I noted yesterday he said that we are intolerant of anyone tampering with (spiritualizing) the beginning of the story but it when it comes to the end of the story it is suddenly permissible. Here MacArthur identifies the hermeneutic and practice of the A-Mil camp as that which is consistent with liberalism.
I do not think that John MacArthur thinks that A-Mil guys are liberals, but he is connecting the dots that the hermeneutic is similar, and when consistently applied, would bring you to dwell together not under the trees of the Reformation but rather those of Arminians.
Finally, MacArthur did indicate today that the identification with the dispensational camp brings a lot of unnecessary confusion. He gave his dispensational position as one who believes in a future for the nation of Israel, a literal kingdom where Jesus will reign, and the literal and ultimate fulfillment of all prophecy. He went on to discuss matters of how he is not identified with those in the dispensationalist camp.
I commend the audio of the 1st Session and the Q&A to you. I would also encourage you to not overreact to what bloggers may or may not be posting. John MacArthur invited everyone to his house and stuck the premillenial flag right in the center of the field. He wants an eschatological discussion. Remember, MacArthur’s stated goal is to see the regrettably marginalized topic of eschatology back into the hearts and minds of those who are so passionately committed to the glory of God in Christ. I hope that his charge does not drive Calvinists back to their favorite teachers for advice or rebuttal, but rather to the Scriptures for clarity, understanding, and confidence.
In addition to Tim Challies there is some additional thoughts on this over Pulpit.
Possibly Related posts:
- John MacArthur defines self-respecting Calvinism as Premillennial
- John MacArthur on Calvinists and Ecclesiology
- Overheard at the Shepherds’ Conference today…
- The Shepherds’ Conference
- Heading to the Shepherds’ Conference
27 Responses to “MacArthur comments further on his ‘controversial’ message”
Leave a Reply
About
Subscribe to Updates
Twitter Updates
- @JustinBuzzard Hands down Pillar's Edwards & then Lane. Ferguson's lil book is good as are Keller's & MacArthur's sermons.
- With him there is plentiful redemption (Ps.130.7). This is good for one who's sin is plentiful!
- We are officially in the South- Fried Chicken & Pickles @ the gas station register.
Recent Comments
- Gordan on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Tweets that mention John Piper on Sermon Prep -- Topsy.com on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Erik on Running from God and To God
- donsands on Running from God and To God
- Tweets that mention Running from God and To God- Irish Calvinist -- Topsy.com on Running from God and To God
erik…thanks for the clarification and keep it coming for all of us still plugging away in the rain up here in Seattle…
Keep up the hard work and learn a lot!
[...] Mar 9th, 2007 by Paul Lamey In light of the aforementioned controversy (here’s a good summary) I thought I would offer a few items for those who want to do some thoughtful reading on the issue of “the role of Israel.” Our own Matt Waymeyer has penned this brief but helpful answer to the question: “Am I a Dispensationalist?” If you really want to jump in feet first you can read his Th.M thesis on “The Identity of ‘All Israel’ in Romans 11:26″. [...]
I don’t think perspicuity is the issue. Clearly Jews prior to Jesus did not clearly understand that the Messiah would have to die to save them. In other words, they were mistaken in their interpretation of the texts.
Combine that and the progress of revelation/redemption and that, I believe, makes amillenialism more than acceptable.
This issue, upon which our salvation does not hinge aside from some extreme positions, is too often used to divide the brethren. Lots of heat, and not so much light.
The fact that the vast majority of Calvinism has not been pre-millenial and particularly dispensational pre-mil means that most Calvinists would disagree with MacArthur’s assertions.
[...] Why Calvinism Necessitates Premillennialism (John MacArthur) Response from Kim Riddlebarger: With All Due Respect to Dr. MacArthur . . . Response from Jason Robertson: Was Jesus an Amil? Response from Erik Raymond: MacArthur comments further on his ‘controversial’ message [...]
A Pre-mill position I can accept, but a Pre-trib Pre-mill position is severely unbiblical.
What would MacArthur make of Jesus’ words when he said, “My kingdom is not of this world“?
I happened to attend Talbot Seminary between 1983-85 and took some of my courses at the Talbot Satellite Campus on the grounds of Grace Church, before the move to Masters Seminary. One of the courses I took there was “Daniel-Revelation” from Prof. Irv Busenitz. I am not a dispensationalist, so this was an interesting course for me to say the least. One quote I will never forget from this course was “amillennialism is the first step toward liberalism.” Having just transferred from Westminster (it’s a long story) this comment struck me as…well just silly. It doesn’t surprise me that John MacArthur would share this view. I don’t think John is silly by any stretch, but this view is.
[...] UPDATE: Here are some more thoughts from the Irish Calvinist after a Q & A session with MacArthur. [...]
Cavman said, “Clearly Jews prior to Jesus did not clearly understand that the Messiah would have to die to save them. In other words, they were mistaken in their interpretation of the texts.”
I have heard this idea repeated many times. I think your comment confuses two very different questions. 1)What does the OT actually teach ? and 2) how did “some” (not all Jews) understand the OT?
To say that Jews prior to Jesus did not understand the Messiah is a generalization that has no support in Scripture (i.e., that’s not the whole story). John Sailhamer addressed the very issue you raise in his presidential address at ETS (Nov. 15, 2000) and clearly demonstrated the OT, when viewed in its proper historical context, is already messianic in a NT sense and believing Jews understood this. His article was subsequently published in JETS 44/1 (March 2001) 5-23. I would encourage you to read his article before making claims that appear unwarranted by Scripture.
All blessings in Christ.
It seems that many are are falling into the trap that many anti-Calvinists accuse Calvinists of: adherence to Calvin rather than the Bible. We must always be careful not to confuse the two. As Spurgeon said: “Calvinism is just a bad nickname for Biblical Christianity”. Let’s stick to the Bible while appreciating what Calvin left us.
[...] John is a dispensational pre-millenialist, in case you didn’t know. I was one, a long time ago. I find it disheartening that he would throw down the gauntlet to ‘discuss’ this topic in such an inflamatory way. This is not how to increase postive discussion. But, I’ve been party to his lack of “social graces” at other conferences while he criticized his host’s views on this same matter (other Christian celebrities suffer from this same problem). Now he insults his guests. Unfortunately, he is now getting trashed by folks on other blogs (and brothers are trashing one another too). [...]
I think it is a pertinent issue. Yes, the point is what does the text teach. But Erik and others point not to the text, but to how OT Jews understood the text. So, my point still stands.
The next point in the discussion would then be what does the text say. Since so much of the latter parts of Isaiah are fulfilled in Revelation 21-22 instead of the millenium… I suspect the progress of revelation would say their expectation of a limited earthly reign was insufficient. It shall be an eternal reign on the entire renewed earth. I’d say your hopes are too small. But you can disagree with me.
Up until very recently I have avoided this whole eschatological argument in favor of “if-it-gets-your -butt-of-the-couch-ism.” In other words, no matter what you believe about the end times it ought to motivate you to evangelize and if it instead causes you to pour over tabloid style conspiracy websites, you have a problem.
I still favor this particular heresy but after reading “A Case for Amillenialism” by Riddlerbarger I have to say that the already/not yet argument is a compelling one. If we are declared righteous, yet still awaiting a body free from a sin nature then doesn’t it stand to reason that God’s kingdom can be declared “HERE” yet also awaiting a “physical manifestation.” The difference seems to fall whether we believe that the physical manifestation is here on this sinful earth or in a sinless new creation.
Whichever way that we fall, I’m not sure that John’s challenge clarified this question so much as it muddied the reputations of those that fall on a particular side.
I agree wholeheartedly with what A. Schultz said, “no matter what you believe about the end times it ought to motivate you to evangelize….”
Sharing the gospel has to be our priority, and if there is one thing about premill dispies (especially of the Arminian variety) that makes me green with envy is their burden for souls and dedication to soulwinning. If only we Calvinists had such a sense of urgency to get out the word.
As for MacArthur’s statements, I have to say that after a day’s reflection I am grateful for his stirring us from the eschatological complacency that has settled into Reformed circles. He has me galvanized to open God’s word anew, study his claims and arguments, and to reexamine my own eschatological beliefs. It also has me wanting to get a better understanding of Amillennialism and to take care to distinguish the thoughtful Dispensationalists from the “Dispensensationalists.”
Even if MacArthur’s remarks strike us as unnecessarily inflammatory, anything that sparks thought and discussion of important biblical matters can’t be all bad.
Erik,
It looks like we’re going to miss each other. If you happen to see a bald guy in a blue sweater tonight, that’s me. I hope you’ve enjoyed and benefitted from this conference as much as I have.
Van, Sorry man. Hey if you get this tonight I am walking around in a green and white striped dress shirt (it is the only one of its kind…:/) This is a little more distinct than your blue sweater reference…erik
i started reading the OT prophets literally and it is extremely exciting as it talks about our future and/or Israel’s future. Even the Psalms talks about this future kingdom. It is enlightening and brings a lot of hope.
[...] Thursday Q&A (John MacArthur) Irish Calvinist [...]
[...] More thoughts after a Q & A session with MacArthur. [...]
I think MacArthur’s comments are funny, in a goofy sense. This is just further evidence that being a Calvinist is not the same as being Reformed. If anything else, he needs a history lesson. Maybe he should stick to topics that he is good at, whatever they are. I was going to start reading some of his work, but now I know why I have never got around to it. He needs to get out, and play with others more often. At least this is one argument that us Post-Mil guys can just sit back, be surprised that it is not us, and giggle.
Curt, I would encourage you to listen to the messages before making final judgments.
I find you comments about not getting around to reading his work interesting. It may be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the guy who has been labeled the best expositor of the last hundred years.
see this post from Phil Johnson regarding the reformed label and John.
Yeah Curt, although I don’t agree with MacArthur on this issue, I would cast off reading his books altogether.
However, to labeled as the best expositor of the last hundred years is rather heavy…Martin Lloyd Jones would most likely be up there.
Agh…typo *wouldn’t cast off…
One good typo deserves another…I meant to write “one of the best expositors”…although I would put him at the top of the list. Who else since Calvin has provided such in-depth exposistional aides to preachers through commentaries? While at the same time addressing issue after issue that comes down the stream…
Well I do think he has probably encouraged many reformed men in America to preach the word of God this way, but I still think Lloyd Jones is hard to be pushed off that #1 spot in the last century. His books (based on sermons) on the Sermon on the Mount, Romans and Ephesians are more weighty than any others that I know of.
As far as “since Calvin”…I couldn’t give names, but the Puritans as a whole, have probably been the largest ‘group’ to contribute to expository preaching. One puritan spent well over 20 years in the gospel of Mark alone, I think the same guy had a commentary on the same book…over 1000 pages.
Big statement you make bro, but I respect your thoughts. However, I can’t understand how such a man see’s two second comings – although that’s another topic altogether
Erik & Armin, Thanks for your comments. Well, we all can’t read everybody. To me, whether someone has been labeled as “one of the best expositors” or not, reveals more about one’s own theological bend, than anything else. Those kind of conversations are the same as saying you’re a Calvinist because of Calvin.
As far a MacArthur is concerned, I am sure that he has made great contributions to the Church.
I do read, fairly extensively, and I definitely don’t just read those of whom I just agree. I read Antinomians’s and Reconstrcutionist’s. I have read a lot of Dispensational works, Historic Pre-Mil, A-Mil, and Post-Mil authors. The main reason has been because that has been my Eschatological progression.
Have either of you read John Flavel, Richard Mather, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Robert Dabney, A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, James Montgomery, J. Gresham Machen, Marcellus Kik, O.T. Allis, Greg Bahnsen, R.J. Rushdoony, David Chilton, R.C. Sproul, or Ken Gentry? These would all be categorized as Postmillennial thinker’s. Just like any other distinctive, there are some differences in views in that camp. One of those is the place of Israel in the future. There are plenty that believe that there is still a remnant of God’s elect included in them. And that there is a eschatological future for the elect Jews, including myself. That being said, the fact that so many use this issue to start, just reveals their theological frame work. Millennialism, by definition, is mainly concerned with the nature and timing of the Millennium. Sure, issues like Israel are included, though they don’t define a true position on the Millennium. If they do, it reveals that one’s system is predicated on it. I suggest that a worth while conversation on eschatology begin with the nature and timing of the Millennium.
I also suggest that
As far as “listening” to John’s message prior to making judgments, you are both right, and I will. Although, even you Erik, seem to be trying to make sense out of it.
“I do not think that John MacArthur thinks that A-Mil guys are liberals, but he is connecting the dots that the hermeneutic is similar, and when consistently applied, would bring you to dwell together not under the trees of the Reformation but rather those of Arminians.
Still, I don’t think it takes anybody from either side of the issue to see the silliness in such a point, assuming he is trying to make that connection. To be frank, someone with a Dispensational hermeneutic shouldn’t be throwing stones from their glass houses. Not only is the system historically novel (even honest Dispensationalist’s are admitting) but John’s comments seem quite contrary to the position of the church, in that eschatology has not been an acid test for orthodoxy (Except for Hyper-preterism). Besides, can anyone argue that the majority of Dispensationalist’s (or flavors of such) aren’t Arminians? Those things are what make his comments seem short sighted.
I would suggest that you read Prophecy and the Church by Oswald T. Allis and Christ’s Second Coming Will it be Premillennial? By David Brown. Both are older books, and there has never been an expectable rebuttal, to either. Unless you accept something from the likes of Tim Lahaye as an acceptable rebuttal. Beyond that I would suggest Revelation, Four Views a parallel commentary edited by Steve Gregg, An Eschatology of Victory by Marrcellus Kik, and Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the Book of Revelation by Ken Gentry. (I do that since I should read MacArthur)
That being said, I also agree with Erik that…
“I hope that his charge does not drive Calvinists back to their favorite teachers for advice or rebuttal, but rather to the Scriptures for clarity, understanding, and confidence.”
That being said, though I will be out of town for the next 2 weeks, I suggest we start a conversation on the nature and timing of the Millennium.
In Christ, Curt
Perspicuity has always been carefully defined with specific respect to the general truths of salvation – not to every matter of Scripture (and certainly not with regard to matters of OT prophecy).
Peter himself refers to writings of Paul which were more difficult for contemporaries to understand (2 Pet 3:15-16) – so I suggest we take care to employ the doctrine of perspicuity as it has been historically defined and in a way that is actually defensible.
It is canon, in reference to the rule of Scripture. No field artillery needed.