A Reply to John MacArthur's 2007 Shepherd's Conference Lecture on Self-Respecting Calvinists and Premillennialism
Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 11:02AM 
“John MacArthur on Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Israel and Hermeneutics: A Few Comments”
In April 2007, I made my way through Dr. MacArthur’s controversial lecture, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist” (given at the Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church, on March 7, 2007). The lecture can be ordered here (Click here: MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing).
Regrettably, I am just now getting around to completing my response–my day job kept getting in the way. Better late than never, perhaps?
As we have come to expect of him, Dr. MacArthur spoke with great passion, covered much ground quickly, and had a great deal to say. No question, Dr. MacArthur commands authority. One can easily see why Dr. MacArthur is so widely-respected. When it comes to the gospel, he’s on the side of the angels. When it comes to eschatology, however, I must beg to differ.
As a Reformed amillennarian (who was raised a dispensationalist) I had a powerful gut-level reaction to Dr. MacArthur’s lecture. While this lecture was well-received by the friendly and largely dispensational home court audience to whom it was delivered, surely Dr. MacArthur knew that his words would amount to picking a fight with those Reformed amillennarians who may have been present. This was not the playful jab that conference speakers often take at one another at such events. No, this was a warning of sorts–a shot fired across the bow.
My take is that this was MacArthur’s attempt to go from being on defense to switching over to offense. Despite the self-assurance with which the lecture was delivered, in many ways, the lecture seemed like a rather desperate attempt to stem the rising tide of interest in Reformed amillennialism in the Reformed-evangelical conference circuit, where many are now openly rejecting MacArthur’s beloved dispensationalism. At least that’s how it seemed to me.
As I worked my way through the specific points raised by Dr. MacArthur, it was very hard not to become exasperated. The lecture seemed out of place at such a conference and would have been a much better fit at a conference devoted to dispensational eschatology. At least the audience would have known what was coming in advance.
More to the point, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist” was a rather strident attack upon something that I as a Reformed amillennarian don’t believe. In fact, it was hard to recognize my own position as Dr. MacArthur made his case. Sadly, this was clearly an attack upon something that Dr. MacArthur truly believes that Reformed amillennarians believe. The same circumstance was true, no doubt, for those historic premillennarians, who likewise embrace Calvinism and arrived at the “Shepherd’s Conference” only to be told that in order to be consistent to Scripture and God's sovereignty, they too must embrace MacArthur’s dispensationalism in addition to being premillennial.
That Dr. MacArthur is a premillennial dispensationalist comes as no surprise. He has every right to state and defend his position, especially before his home church. But I am sure that many in the audience gathered for the Shepherd’s Conference were taken aback by the fact that he picked this particular forum--especially when a number of Reformed amillennarians were present and when several well-known amillenarians were invited to speak at the conference–to make the point that unless you adopt the dispensational hermeneutic you are unable to understand much of the Bible (certainly the eschatological portions).
With a rather striking measure of audacity, Dr. MacArthur went on to argue that unless you are a dispensationalist, you cannot be a “consistent Calvinist.” Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that as soon as live-blogger Tim Challies posted his initial report about MacArthur’s lecture, emails began to fly and the blogosphere went nuts! “Did you hear what MacArthur said about Calvinism?” “Did you hear what MacArthur said about amillennialism?” “Did you hear what he said about Calvin?” Thankfully, things have now calmed down a bit and we can look at these matters more objectively.
To read the rest of this response, Click here: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur
Reader Comments (62)
Anyone know for sure?
Also, I would agree with those who say that MacArthur is often in a feisty moood! He really does have quite a number of books which attack this or that position. Thankfully, much of that which "Mac" attacks is worthy of such attacks (e.g., the health/wealth "gospel," the psychological/marketing the church approach, etc.). (By the way, has anyone seen Piper's passionate denunciation of the health/wealth crowd? I say, "BINGO! it's high time these quacks were called what they really are: not only lunatics but also heretics!)
While I have appreciated and benefited from much of what MacArthur has taught, and while I am especially thankful for his zeal in defending and proclaiming the gospel, I really think that he fails to understand amil eschatology, and that his dispensational view of Scripture is fundamentally flawed.
Now that progressive dispensationalists have moved beyond much of the baggage of the older dispensationalism, it just plain mystifies me why anyone would still hold to the older Israel/church and two eternal destinies distinctions of Darby, etc. ... especially in light of what the NT actually says (e.g., Gal. 3/4; Eph. 2/3; Heb. 7-10; etc.). Shadow has given way to substance ... in Christ. Why return the anticipatory shadows? Isn't that what so concerned Paul in Galatians and Colossians? Didn't the author of Hebrews sternly warn against drifting away and falling away from Christ?
I think Kim's response to MacArthur was measured and right-on.
I have to wonder how much of this Israel position is politically motivated by the likes of John Hagee and the CUFI Camp.
There is a growing movement among Evangelicals that are not afraid to challenge and criticize Israel's human rights violations (New York Times July 27, 2007 OP/ ED page): read Gary Burge's Whose Land? Whose? What Christians are Not Being Told About the Palestinians, Robertson's above mentioned book, and numerous others mentioned on a website that challenges Christian Zionism www.christianzionism.org.
DA Carson teaches at TEDS which has always required that their profs subscribe to inerrancy and premill. I have recently heard that the Evangelical Free Church (the denomination to which TEDS is affiliated) has now said they accept amill as a position within TEDS. My hunch is that Carson had something to do with this since (1) he is a very respected voice in that setting and (2) he highly esteems GK Beale's NIGTC on Rev which is amill. (I'd bet TEDS would do just about anything to not lose Carson; putting all of this together suggests he is now amill.) Carson will be writing a commentary on Rev in PNTC to replace PE Hughes but there is no release date yet. Carson, like Beale, also has a strong interest on how the NT uses the OT which would lend itself to accepting the amill position. (Carson did his doctorate under Lindars who himself did much work on the OT in the NT.)
Is there a single highly regarded old-school dispensational scholar? (DL Bock is progressive) It is clear from his NT commentary survey that Carson has no respect for dispensationalism (see his remarks on Thomas in Thessalonians and Rev; for a laugh, see his comments on MacArthur in Matthew).
ds
It's certainly obvious from a great variety of books that Don Carson is no friend of dispensationalism! That's clear not only in his full length commentaries and theological works, but also from an appendix in his little book "The Sermon on the Mount" in which he acknowledges that dispensationalism is both a popular view and a powerful force, and yet takes it to task for its (mis)use of the OT, contrary to the NT.
I'm looking forward to Carson's work on Hebrews (as well as those on I John and Revelation). It's also worthy of note that Greg Beale's magnificent work on the temple is in a growing series of theological works edited by Carson. And so I'm also very eager to see the publication (edited by Carson and Beale) of the NT Use of the OT. Ah, I need patience!
I'm intrigued by EFCA's apparent recognition of the amil view among faculty at Trinity, but am disheatened that (evidently) the doctrinal position of EFCA has remained the same as always on the millennial issue.
Finally, speaking of "laughers," I've always been amused by Carson's remark about Josephine Ford's commentary on Revelation. Carson says that her commentary "is entertaining, primarily because it is eccentric. John the Batist, we are told, was responsible for most of Revelation - but perhaps that is not too surprising from a scholar who has argued that the Blessed Virgin penned Hebrews."
If it didn't so badly mangle the relationship between the testaments, perhaps I could view dispensationalism as just eccentric.
When Dr. Mac appears to be sarcastic in his scoffing and quips, rest assured, he's not kidding -- he only wants you to *think* he's just being cute. Listen to him enough and you'll come to see that, underneath the nice suits and polished theology degree, is an attitude of "Duh! Hello, McFly? Don't you get it?" So while some of you are going to give him the benefit of a doubt, I, however, have listened to enough Mac to know that he means exactly what he says, draws lines exactly where he wants them, and feels quite free and even entitled to jeer and mock those who do not agree on the finer points.
This is why, even among those who mostly agree with him theologically, many will concede that he's not exactly known for his humility. JMac is one of two teachers that I no longer listen to because I found myself imitating them and I didn't like the cockiness. My flesh can so easy get wrapped up in that sort of pride; the resulting critical spirit being a shameful condition and hard to unseat.
When I hear him nowadays, what a "resounding gong" he is, no matter what mysteries he can fathom -- or preach.
Phil: Unfortunately I aggree far too much with you assessment of the overarching tone in many of Dr. Mac's messages. In the past 25 years (of intermittantly hearing Dr. Mac's messages) I have many times come away with a bad taste in my mouth or a sick feeling in my belly... not so much from the message but more from the method/tone behind the delivery... your post has clarified much of why that is...
Interesting. I've heard other people say the same thing. Compare and contrast Dr. Riddlebarger's tone with that of MacArthur: much, much different. One is much more charitable than the other. I also noticed that at Pyromaniacs, after MacArthur had given his speech, there was a certain bitter defensiveness on the part of the bloggers there over MacArthur's comments, with Phil Johnson's admission that they are not, in fact, Reformed except in their soteriology. This was rather surprising to me, because everyone else seems to think they are and MacArthur is often invited to speak at Ligonier conferences and is often seen with Sproul. It seems they want it both ways.
On the other hand, his theological training has been at a dispensational school(Talbot Seminary). And combine that with the fact that he isn't self-consciously denominational, or confessional, and you have a man who is able to pick and choose from different theological traditions and somehow reconcile them in bizarre ways.
However his words often do paint him that way--I'm just pointing out the guilt by association remark isn't always valid--and when it is valid, it isn't for the reason that is often given.
I still maintain MacArthur can be used for good, and we can profit from some of his books. Like all the people out there teaching we need to compare his teachings with scripture. I believe, like many others out there you will find good and bad (the others will be all bad,)
He has another endtimes type book either out ot coming out soon, and I look forward to reading it to see how approaches it. I disagreed with his previous one, but it was well presented and makes me do my homework and thinking about what I believe, and why.
In fact the reading I've done that's most convinced me of amillenialism has been writings trying to disprove it.
Furthermore, the Master's Seminary used to be a extension school of Talbot and MacArthur was one of the people responsible for leading the extension school.
Having said that, I do believe there are some good things about MacArthur that have been mentioned already. But most people don't realize that there are many different aspects to his theology. For instance, the MacArthur that we do read in books written solely by him such as his commentaries are more progressive dispensationlist than maybe the books he writes in conjunction with others such as in the Banner of Truth books with people such as Sproul or even Horton in which he emphasizes the solas of the reformation.
And people don't realize that his theology has evolved over time. For instance, I don't believe he has always held to the idea of definite atonement. But because he has been under the influence of other Calvinists, he has come to a more biblical conclusion.
This isn't something that is new. The IFCA (Independent Fundamentalist Church of America), of which he is a member of, has pressured him because he has progressed to a more reformed view of salvation. In his book, 'The Gospel According to Jesus', there is a foreward from J.I. Packer and James Boice.
Just for fun, I took a little time to read over his comments on the better country/heavenly Jerusalem in Heb. 11:9-10,13-16, as well as his comments on the shaking of heaven and earth in Heb. 12:25-29, as found in his expository commentary on Hebrews (published by Moody). I also checked these against what Mac said in his "MacArthur Study Bible." Interestingly, he apparently rightly understands that the ultimate hope of OT believers is for the new heavens/earth, and that the "yet once more" shaking of heaven and earth is a reference to that time when the present heavens and earth are destroyed to give way to the new heavens and earth. This is good, and it would be in line with PD, historic premil and amil teaching.
However, he doesn't really develop these thoughts or their implications very much, nor tie them into the millennial issue (as Hoekema, Venema and Riddlebarger have done). He thus apparently fails to see how these passages ultimately cut the legs out of the dispensational view of any sort.
Furthermore (and speaking more to the matter of PD), although "Mac" can bring himself to see at least a measure of fulfillment of the new covenant in the present age (unlike classic dispensationalists), the very nature of the way he attacked the amil view at the Shepherd's Conference (referring to it as a spiritualizing God's promises), plus numerous details of how he sees God's promises fulfilled in a (conjectured) future millennium (but in a retrogressive sense), combine to indicate to me that he is more in line with the "old" school dispensationalism (whether classic or revised) than the "new" school PD.
This is really no surprise to me for a couple of reasons: (1) One of Mac's colleagues, Robert Thomas (cf. his Moody Exegetical Commentary on Revelation or his EBC on I/II Thessalonians) is about as "old" school dispensational as one can get (and the "old" school dispensationalists are not a little irritated by what's going on in PD circles!). (2) Mac's propensity for "pick and choose" theology.
Personally, I think PD is much closer to (though not identical with) historic premillennilism. Mac may embrace some PD ideas, but in other ways he seems to me to be more in line with either classic or revised dispensationalism.
But regardless of who believes what, and exactly how we should classify various varieties of end-times convicitons on the spectrum that extends from classic dispensationalism to "new earth" amillennilism, I think ALL forms of dispensationalism (including PD) ultimately fail (among other reasons) because of their perculiar commitment to an ongoing and clean-cut distinction between Israel and the church - which utterly refuses to appreciate what Paul says in Ephesians 2 and 3 about believing Jews and Gentiles, and the demolition of the wall between them.
And to me, this failure is not only a failure to recognize that believing Jews and Gentiles are fellow members of the body of Christ (and are so forever), but also a failure to recognize that believing Gentiles as well as Jews are fellow partakers of the promises of God (cf. Eph. 3:6 with Eph. 2:11f)!
Yes, when we see that ALL of God's people (believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews) are the recipients of God's promises ... AND ... that these promises find their ultimate fulfillment not in a conjectured future (and retrogressive) millennial age but in the new heavens/earth and new Jerusalem of which Scripture clearly speaks, well then we are well on our way to the amil view!
But MacArthur, due to his insistence on a hard core Israel/church distinction, fails to come as far as PDs. It's not that PDs themselves don't have problems in this regard, but at least they can see a significant degree of continuity between the OT promises and (a) fulfillment, in part, in this present age, and (b) fulfillment, in full, in the age to come. Mac, in my opinion, has farther to go in these regards.
Calvinists place a high premium on the sovereignty of God, and obviously believe that God keeps His word.
MacArthur, of course, believes that God has promised a future millennial kingdom. Thus, holding to a high view of God's sovereignty, he's convinced that God's promises of a future millennial kingdom will surely come to pass.
Obviously, the weak link in this chain of reasoning is the assumption that God has promised a future millennial kingdom! And for a ton of reasons, amils believe that (a) God has NOT promised a future millennial kingdom, and (b) He HAS promised a new heavens and earth. Amils, in fact, believe that what God SAYS actually RULES OUT the very possibility of a future millennial age.
Thus I'm pretty satisifed that I, as a self-respecting Calvinist (who is true to his convictions about a God who cannot and does not lie), not only can but also MUST be ... amillennial!
The issue isn't the perspicuity of the Old Testament, but rather the authority of the New Testament. Most premillennialists that I encounter use the same argument, stating that using a literal hermeneutic in the OT will always lead to premillennialism. I disagree. In fact, I'll hold that a Christian cannot consistently ignore the authority of the New Testament in interpretating Old Testament prophecy. I could give many obvious examples (Psalm 22, Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 53, Micah 5:2), all of which Christians interpret in light of the New Testament fulfillment. On what grounds, then, will they reject Peter's interpretation of the Davidic Covenant (Acts 2) or Paul's interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant (Galatians 3)? If one insists on the consistent hermeneutic that premills wish to employ, it doesn't lead to premillennialism. Instead, it would ultimately lead to Judaism.
And while we're on the subject of covenants, I would add as well what Heb. 11:9f,13ff says about the so-called Palestinian Covenant.
While I agree that the way dispys read their OTs leads (or can lead) to Judaism, I think I'd rather say that the OT itself ---rightly read--- leads to something much different than what the dispy premil view maintains.
It's not that I'm trying to put all my theological eggs into the basket of Isa. 65:17 and Heb. 11:10,16, and what these verses say about the new heavens and earth and the new Jerusalem. For I believe that the NT adds a great deal of clarity to what the OT says! It greatly enables us to better see "who gets what ... and when and where ... and why and how."
However, I think the OT saints, including the OT patriarchs, understood the promises God gave them better than many in our own day understand those promises! How else could Abraham, Isaac and Jacob regarded themselves as but aliens, exiles, foreigners and strangers ... even while tenting in the land of promise? Answer: Because they were looking to the God-made, heavenly, perfect and eternal, Jerusalem! This isn't something we, as non-dispensationalists, foist upon them; it's something the Bible itself says these OT saints were really desiring, seeking and looking for! They understood, as far as I can tell, that God's promises pointed to something above and beyond this present evil and temporal cosmos.
So while I agree that a dispensational misunderstanding of both testaments leads to a Judaism tendency (witness their millennium!), I think we can also sell the OT saints a bit short. Surely there was much they did not understand (cf., e.g., I Pet. 1:10-12), but surely there was also much they did understand! Better even than present day dispys!
Pat
So when a dispensationalist asks how Judaists would be expected to understand OT prophecy, the correct answer is that they didn't. That is precisely why they are Judaists. Jesus said that they were blind leaders of the blind, which is not a qualification I would want to put on Bible interpretation.