Tags
Reformed Theology Opposes John MacArthur
John MacArthur has a series of messages entitled “Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist.” I don’t want to give the links, because I’d rather you not read them, but there it is. The transcriptions to his series are interesting, yes, but filled with non-biblical fancy and false presuppositions, which, needless to say is disappointing from such a man.
Certain areas of John MacArthur’s theological teaching rests on a confutative use of Scripture. That is regretful. I highly admire the man, insofar as his teaching is in accord with Scripture.
It is at that particular point, “insofar as his teaching is in accord with Scripture” that we part ways.
In regards to eschatology, premillennial dispensationalism, being of recent origin, has never been the orthodox position of historic Christianity, yet it has grounded itself firmly within evangelical circles disguised as such. John MacArthur of course, is a strict adherent and teacher of said doctrines.
MacArthur maintains the foundational positions of the system:
- The distinction between Israel and the Church: God is pursuing two distinct purposes, Israel’s is earthly, and the Church’s is heavenly. ”Dispensationalism views them as two different bodies of saints each having its own promises. responsibilities, and expectations” (Earnest Pickering, Dispensational Theology, p.35).
- Employing a ‘consistently literal principle of interpretation’ (which, obviously, neither MacArthur nor any dispensationalists does in reality)
- Declaring God’s purposes center in His glory rather redemption
Now I have no interest, at least for now, of trying to dismantle dispensational teaching. Actually, it would be too easy, and has been done so many times already ad infinitum.
However, the title of MacArthur’s posts intrigued me. It’s just ironic really. “Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist”. It’s just too funny. It’s like Darth Vader asking Luke to come over to the dark side.
No thanks.
Earnest Pickering, whom I quoted above, also said: Reformed theology is basically at odds with the major principles of dispensationalism. (Pickering, Dispensational Theology, p.30)
That is more than just an interesting statement, it is also telling of a long historical opposition of Reformed theology towards dispensationalism, which MacArthur would have us all embrace. This is the point of my post. MacArthur’s position has been opposed by Calvinists since the proverbial Day 1. Unfortunately, few seem to have noticed.
Prior to the 1930’s and 40’s, believers became so united in opposition to modernism and evolution that the errors of dispensationalism were yet to be brought to the forefront. In 1944, the Eighty-Fourth General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted a report dealing with “whether the type of Bible interpretation known as dispensationalism is in harmony with the Confession of Faith.” It’s conclusion was as follows:
It is the unanimous opinion of your committee that Dispensationalism as defined and set forth above is out of accord with the system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith…it attacks the very heart of the theology of our Church… (Presbyterian Church in the U.S., Minutes of the 84th General Assembly, May 25-30, 1944, pp. 123-127)
I have not even begun to scratch the historical surface of quotes of Reformed theologians in opposition to MacArthur’s position on eschatology.
The historical facts are, if anyone would bother to research it, that since the inception of dispensationalism to this very day, reformed theology, or Calvinism has opposed premillennial dispensationalism. Yet John MacArthur would have every ‘self-respecting’ Calvinist embrace it? I don’t think so.
Dispensationalism is unbiblical. It is a lie. It is therefore, quite disheartening to see an expositor of God’s Word with such public influence as John MacArthur, who has done so much in the cause of Truth, to invite those who adhere to the doctrines of grace, to water them down and embrace man-made teachings that denigrate the church, deny fulfillment of prophecy according to God’s Word itself, deny the Kingship of Jesus Christ, etc, in favor of a system of teaching, recent in origin, that opposes the central tenet of Scripture, that of redemption.
J.G. Machen:
A man may hold to those notes of the Scofield Bible, or he may hold to the reformed faith, but he certainly cannot hold to both. He must make his choice (Guardian, Nov. 14, 1936, p.43).
5 Pt. Salt 
Hmmmm. This concerns me. Christians seem to have developed a real passion for tearing others down of late and it shows us in a very negative light. We are right to stand for the gospel, amd scriptural truth.
I personally admire John MacArthur and find him to be completely trustworthy in his exegesis of scripture.
However, I grant that I could be wrong here. It seems to me that the proper and scholarly thing to do, if you are going to take issue with something MacArthur said, would be to provide the source data of your concern. It disrespects your readers to have to go hunting down a source that you could easily provide us. Subject matter sources are often parsed, quote mined and even completely misrepresented. By providing a link, you show good faith.
The fact is, reformed believers are all over the map in regards to eschatology.
I will be happy to read anything you provide to support your statements here. But I’m loathe to start piling on a respected reformed Pastor on your say-so.
Katie, don’t make me like you. 🙂
@Katie: Could you elaborate on your statement “reformed believers are all over the map in regards to eschatology?” Regarding the issue in question with MacArthur, there are only four option: Dispensational Pre-Mill; Historic Pre-Mill; Post-Mill; and A-Mill. The vast majority of reformed folk are A-Mill, with Post-Mill a distant second and Historic Pre-Mill a very distant third.
Obviously, there are nuances to these positions. Could that be what you’re referring to?
Agreed.
I’m personally tired of hearing the “dispensationalism is of recent origin” complaint. Really! It either has merit biblically or it doesn’t. The so called Reformed view isn’t much older.
I have tried to study and accept the so called majority position of the Reformed escatalogical view but the more I study the bible, the more I find the arguments really unconvincing and I become more “dispensational” all the time.
Also, I don’t think it’s exactly fair to place all who hold to a Premillennial view in the same camp either. There certainly are some blatantly unbiblical views held by many dispinsationalists.
Thomas
(Happily Reformed Premillennialist) 🙂
Katie, no one is asking for a ‘pile on’. That is absurd. The purpose of the post was begin to show how historically, Reformed theology has been in strong opposition to dispensationalism. Since John Mac was not quoted, what source do I need from him? I too admire MacArthur, so you’ve jumped the gun as far as purpose here. But thanks for your comment.
I was rebuked on another blog when I opined that MacArthur was arrogant and wrong when made his statement about Calvinist must be dispy. If it was eschatology, I would leave it alone. But as noted above, dispensationalism – even Mac’s “leaky” kind – rails against the Bible.
No Reformer should make an equivalent statement about amillennialism. I think Mac’s statement shows the shallowness of the dispensational position, when one has to assert without argument.
Amen. May God give MacDaddy more leaks!
Interesting that you posted specifically on John MacArthur’s eschatology. I agree with many of John MacArthur’s views on Christian doctrine, however, this is one area where I differ (Granted, I have not listened to Mac’s argument for his eschatology, it was on my near-term to-do list), and I have taken an Amill position.
I agree with Katie, let’s see more of your cards.
Reformed eschatology has never been in one stream. St Augustine, Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and many of the prominent sound stalwarts of classical biblical theology have never agreed on the detail of eschatology. The beauty of this diversity is that it makes every one keep searching scripture with the comfort that ‘yes we are in the last days …but its not now yet’. We all look forward to being joined to Christ and till then we are bound to get the timings wrong as Jesus warned : No body knows the day or the hour, except my father in heaven. I will love Joel even though he gets eschatology wrong, I will also love MacArthur even though he gets eschatology wrong. No body has ever got it right as the future is still at large.
I like MacArthur too. I am deeply grateful for his ministry. It’s too bad people are missing the issue here! BTW, are you saying we can’t be certain about anything? Have you been reading emergent books? 😉
See comment policy, especially regarding links
I have removed the link.
If you do go looking to hear what MacArthur has preached on this subject, make sure you get the whole series – I think it was 7 parts. I remember thinking that the title was unnecessarily provocative at the time, but unnecessarily provocative titles are not an uncommon tactic.
If you just can’t get past MacArthur’s title, perhaps you should listen to S Lewis Johnson. Johnson was booted out of Dallas Theological Seminary (where he had been President) because of his Calvinism. He is premil, and admittedly his series is considerably longer, but it is also much more complete. If you really want to understand why otherwise sensible Christians would believe “lies”, you would do well to listen to Johnson on “Eschatology” – all 37 messages are available online.
Alan,
I’ve posted this comment of yours, yet here you do exactly what I’ve asked not to be done. Referring and promoting S Lewis Johnson? Consider it a one-time courtesy to make a point. Please refrain, I will not promote what I believe to be heresy before God.
Joel, your mention of the foundational positions of dispensationalism seem to be on the money – from what I understand so far. However, I think your comment on the ‘consistently literal principle of interpretation’ reveals a common misjudgment. Literal interpretation means nothing more than apply a grammatical historical (and contextual) hermeneutic. That IS Reformed interpretation, no? I know of no believers that read Scripture with the kind of “wooden literalism” that is often suggested by critics. Sound hermeneutic accounts for narrative, hyperbole, prophetic, apocalyptic, metaphor, didactic, poetry, sarcasm, and yes, even symbolism. In fact, this is just common sense – it’s just how we understand written language.
So you are correct in saying that (hopefully) no one employs the kind of literalism that you have in mind, least of all Dispensationalists. This is perhaps the most foundational of the 3 positions you mention. After all, it is this approach to Scripture that leads to the other conclusions, and I think it deserves more than a off-handed mischaracterization.
Alan, that definition pretty much comes straight from Charles Ryrie.
I am by no means an opponent of MacArthur, and have much of his stuff directly linked to from my own website, but I am opposed to his eschatological position, just as I believe the Bible text is also.
The reason for the claims of arrogance is because of his sermon entitled “Why every self-respecting Calvinist is a premillennialist”, preached at the Shepherds conference 2007, hosted at Grace Community Church.
The title of the sermon itself denigrates the commonly held amillennialist view as a valid theology, and infers that opponents to premillennialism should not be taken seriously. This message, title and all, was spoken openly at a conference held at MacArthurs own church, and knowing full well that a large percentage of the conference were actually amillennialist in their eschatology. Can that not be described accurately as arrogance?
Possibly a good place to start if you want to judge for yourself would be at Kim Riddlebarger’s blog, who is co-host of White Horse Inn with Michael Horton, and who puts in place a fair and reasoned response to MacArthur. http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/
Joel,
Let me clarify.
My concern here is that Christians are becoming so ‘rightly divided’ that any issue, even secondary issues, now becomes a reason to either go after a respected Pastor, or to separate from them. Sometimes, we need to separate when sound doctrine is the concern, but most of the time, it is a legalism problem. Just over the last week, I’ve seen Christians being completely unkind and even vicious when it comes to things like music, whether or not a Christian should take anti-depressants or even if they should be allowed the freedom to drink an alcoholic beverage that doesn’t lead to drunkeness. It’s a proverbial smorgasbord of “I’m more pious than you”. The gospel message is ‘Jesus plus nothing’. Yet we seem determined to make it ‘Jesus plus, plus, plus, plus, plus’.
I’m not opposed to Pastors teaching Godly living. Ironically, John MacArthur has much to say about how Christians ought to comport themselves. I can still remember MacArthur sending correspondence to John Piper over Mark Driscoll’s potty mouth. For goodness sakes, we could fill cyberspace with comments about those three. The question in my mind is whether we SHOULD have these kinds of public exchanges. An unbelieving world is watching how we treat each other. What is the message we are sending them?
I reread your statements here and I was able to see that you actually had provided the link. Not sure why you felt the need to say you didn’t “want” to, but nevertheless, it is provided, so I owe you an apology for that. A sincere Mea Culpa is offered.
I can agree that MacArthur has an air of arrogance about him. But I don’t see it as a character flaw, but more of his demeanor. Probably the most arrogant message I’ve ever heard him give is on the problem with Roman Catholicism. Arrogant or not, he was absolutely correct on every single point.
I’m not an expert on eschatology, far from it. But everywhere I look, I see that Reformers are indeed not in complete agreement. Today, I see MacArthur, Piper, Mohler, etc. all hold to a premilennialist view, though there is some difference regarding dispensational thought. I suppose this is just fuel to the fire.
I don’t have any problem with Christians debating issues that aren’t as concrete as we would like them to be. My problem is when we attach bad character to anyone who disagrees.
Here is a video by Al Mohler. I appreciate that he is generous where there is no absolute consensus.
Good post. For some reason the debate between pre mil and a mil gets very hot and the 2 sides can almost be construed as hating one another. I’m reformed pre mil but do respect many a mils because of their tenacity for the gospel and the person and work of Christ. People from all ages were saved by faith (Genesis 15:6) but we don’t see the OT saints coming to Jesus the way we do in the NT. In this way there is a small part of dispensationalism that makes sense though I don’t agree with how they have divided up scripture.
Mohler is reasoned and reasonable, but he stand opposed to the Reformation by holding to chiliasm – which was repudiated by myriad reformers, including Luther and Calvin (both of whom had plenty of error in their theology). For a short article on this: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/reformedchil.html
MacArthur is not arrogant in the least! ‘low blow IMO and unnecessary.
I agree with Mac and believe his exegesis of eschatology to be spot on.
Amen to you, Pastor John.
How’s that kool-aid taste? Cherry?
Reformed theology and dispensationalism mix as well as oil and water.I respect Macarthur and he has done those of us of the Reformed persuasion a great service in the areas teaching and defending monergism. He has baked a fine cake, but frosted it with dog excrement (dispensationalism.)
“Hmmmm. This concerns me. Christians seem to have developed a real passion for tearing others down of late and it shows us in a very negative light.”
It appears that my concern was well placed. You cannot disagree with other Christians. If you do, it will be implied that you cannot think for yourself and are worshipping the Risen King in the same manner people followed the murderous Jim Jones. Or a fine Christian man will be accused of using dog excrement to top off what he believes to be Biblical teaching.
Is it any wonder that unbelievers can’t possibly accept that salvation is a gift? Or that our faith should bring us joy, or that we might actually follow the scripture that admonishes us thus: “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of truth…..” 2Ti 2:24-25.
Katie, dear woman, I see you have drank the koolaid and you would kiss the feet of MacArthur whatever the cost. That is sad. The fact of the matter is simple: MacArthur teaches an eschatology which denigrates and endangers the church, rejects the promises of God for the Church’s edification and encouragement, and promises a salvation to Jews which will never come if they do not repent prior to our Lord’s coming again.
And you, Joel, would kiss the feet of Calvin and the Reformers. You’re defending them, Katie is defending MacArthur. So, what’s the difference?
No, I would not, absolutely not, ‘kiss the feet’ of Calvin and the Reformers. Calvin, for one, was often wrong. I’ll stand with Scripture, thank you.
Katie,
One cannot teach Truth without pointing out error. One cannot teach doctrine without pointing out where differences are with the positions held by others. Without contrast, the human cannot discern his right hand from his left.
THAT is how the Lord’s servant teaches.
Check what’s coming… 🙂
I’ve been watching this post for the last few days and am just stunned at it. God, forgive us.
I’ve also been wondering why my own responses have been kept in a state of “moderation.” On Joel’s prompting I went to the comment policy where I think I found the answer, “no comment will be posted that attempts to teach millennialism.”
The difficulty with that statement, of course, is that you can’t really respond to the amillenialist views with anything substantive, which tends to limit the discussion to common bickering.
Of course, while this comment itself doesn’t violate that part of the policy, I don’t seriously expect it to see the light of day. Unlike the posts about kool-aid and dog excrememt, this one probably falls under the category of “unncessarily divisive.”
Feel free to respond Alan, with the Word of God. I simply refuse to post links to teaching that is clearly in favor of heresy. And I do appreciate your comments. 🙂
Joel, you refer to premillenialism as heresy. That is a strong accusation to make. Assuming you stand by it, can you please point me to some good material that substantiates this claim? In my study so far I must admit that I see no heresy in the premil position, and I would be interested in more deeply examining the opposing view.
I also think I have misunderstood the purpose of your blog. Perhaps others have also. It is exclusively pro-amillenial, and opposing viewpoints are not really welcome. I can respect that – it’s your blog. I am relatively new to the dispensational/covenantal question, and was looking to engage some learned folks that held the latter view. I will look elsewhere for that engagement.
What do you see as ‘the purpose’ of this blog? Opposing viewpoints are, in fact welcome, I just won’t allow you to teach something as true, that isn’t biblical, without opposition. It’s that simple brother.
Just passing by and read this blog and thought “good article” – Calvinists should know that MacArthur doesn’t teach the same view as most reformers have historically believed. I myself, also don’t agree with the dispensationalist view. But I must add to the people posting here, go back and re-read the comments without looking to see who posted which comment in the most unbiased manner possible. The comments are scary to outsiders/believers/unbelievers. I think Katie’s comments come across as the most intelligent, loving and Christ-like. Some of the others are the reason no one wants to be called a Christian anymore and no one wants to become one… who wants to become a “Christian” who talks crudely about dog poo and a man who has tried to the best of his human mind (even if he fails in some areas of teaching) to help other Christians. So MacArthur got End Times wrong. Okay. Doesn’t make it dog poo. That’s a bid unloving and severe. Let us love one another and love John MacArthur despite any false beliefs or teachings you, I and MacArthur all make. I guarantee we will all be teaching/believing some false views from time to time. No one gets it right 100% of the time. That’s why we are ALLOWED to change our views over the years. Horray for that! God bless you all 🙂
◦Joel Taylor saiid
“Katie, dear woman, I see you have drank the koolaid and you would kiss the feet of MacArthur whatever the cost. That is sad. The fact of the matter is simple: MacArthur teaches an eschatology which denigrates and endangers the church, rejects the promises of God for the Church’s edification and encouragement, and promises a salvation to Jews which will never come if they do not repent prior to our Lord’s coming again.”‘
hmmm please show me where Macarthur promises salvation to Isreal apart from repentence? the problem with amil folks is they use straw man tactics to attack Macarthurs view of dispensationalism. or they use another view of dispensationalism and tag macarthur with it. If you want to do yourself justice stick to attacking Macarthurs view and not some other view of dispensationalism calling it his view!
Dear Pastor,
Ive left multiple replies on different posts the last 2 days and they have all got taken down. I didnt use vulgar language or anything. Why are you deleting them? I did refute your absurd claim that the MacArthur Study Bible note in Zechariah 12v10 is heretical. Nice censorship brother. Your attitude in this dispute over a serious allegation is very disturbing.
-A concerned 5pt Calvinist brother.
There is a comment policy here. You’re comments, like this one above is, like everyones, subject to review. If you go off topic, your comment will never see the light of day. Stay on point. You’re previous comments were not posted, most likely because they violated policy of this blog. Any comments may be delted by the admin. Your commenting here at all is a privilege, not a right. Might want to keep that in mind.
Depending on what you mean by ‘heresy’, many of us in your book are not saved because of our eschatology. Needless to say I disagree strongly with that premise.
Good morning Joel,
I align myself to historical premillennialism, so I want to convey my own dismay with John MacArthur’s sermon series from 2007. I’m two thirds in to the series; however, one of my complaints so far is that MacArthur doesn’t characterize the amillennial camp with accuracy. MacArthur gives sound bites or snippets, which demeans those who espouse that position. He mischaracterizes Reformed Amillennialism, which is highly unfortunate. I read Kim Riddlebarger’s blog response, and he makes that same point.
From my perspective, the real sadness comes in seeing how easy it is to fall into disrespectful rhetoric without any ability to stop. I agree with Riddlebarger that MacArthur has a duty to represent opposing views with respect. In fact, I think I could learn that lesson, but all those who call Jesus as Lord could learn this lesson.
Finally, I know MacArthur has the knowledge base to speak intelligently on opposing eschatological views. Why did he stop short of doing that in this series? By the way, my last point to make is that the Reformed response should continue the high road exemplified by Kim Riddlebarger.
Amen, Matthew. Sadder still that two pastors I know have given up on the Shepherds Conference since that ill-fated & ill-conceived lecture.
Sadder yet was the fact that 2-3 thousand or so ministers were hanging on his every word – not only learning heresy, but how NOT to critique a view you oppose!
I am a follower of Christ….I am not reformed nor am I an Arminian…. I do happen to hold to the Doctrines of Grace, as These are represented throughout scripture. Speaking on MacArthur’s view of eschatology, I would strongly agree with him.
We are allowed our differences, so as they do not obscure the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
God Bless
Please see https://5ptsalt.com/2013/10/09/how-dispensationalism-proclaims-a-false-gospel-1/