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)
I was waiting for someone more intelligent than I to address MacArthur's sermon. I have deep respect for MacArthur but was so saddened by his message.
I wanted to add one comment. The question isn't was the OT amill - the question that MacArthur should have raised was, was the OT Pre-mill!
The decided answer to that question would have been of course not! Bavinck's understanding of OT eschatolgy in his book The Last Things, is so helpful. No OT writer ever expressed a limited 1000 year temporary reign! Jesus never talked about a millennium, Paul, nor Peter ever talked about a millennium - and even John in Rev. 20 never mentions the millennium occuring on the earth!
What a breath of fresh air to read Kim's response!
I'm a bit confused as to your referring to a "amillenial hermeneutic" versus a "dispensational hermeneutic"? You would agree that a grammatico-literal,historical/contextual hermeneutic is "the" interpretive method prescribed by Scripture(Neh.8:8,2 Tim. 2:15) So, forgive my simplistic understanding, but ascribing a particular theological"view and/or method" of interpretation to a particular doctrine is dangerous at best and confuses an honest, textual-centered understanding of authorial intent.One then interprets through a grid or filter. I sense that MacArthur strives to remain true to the biblical hermeneutic that sparked the Reformation and continues to provide all of us with the transforming truth of God 's Word.While no man is infallible , we all must agree to interpret Scripture as God intended... to seek His intent through the normal use of grammar,language,history and the consistent application of literary devices where warranted in the text. Perhaps we should spend more time truly seeking to unfold the intent of the entire text of Scripture on this doctrine rather than wrangling about theological systems.A consistent use of a grammatico-literal, historical,contextual hermenteutic is Scriptures clear and consistent method to understand what God has said !
I'm curious - is there an interpretation (of anything) that doesn't come through a grid or filter? To say that we should interpret as God is intended doesn't really help matters. Of course we should - but I for one am pretty sure that my mind is a long long way from God's mind.
Did you actually read my essay? The whole point is that dispensationalists claim not to be bound to a system prior to coming to the text. Presuppositions are especially problematic when people claim not to have any! Dispensationalists have different presuppositions than I. That's clear. The question is, "whose are right?"
Dispensationalists claim to use the grammatico-historical method in an absolutely objective manner to arrive at the conclusion that the Old Testament usage of a theme or prophecy then determines the New Testament usage.
The Reformed amillennarian claims that this is the very thing the dispensationalist cannot deliver. If the New Testament tells me that the land promise made to Abraham has now been universalized, is it not the "literal" interpretation to understand the passage as Paul tells me to? Does Paul give me the plain sense or not?
That's the issue. That is why the Reformed amillennarian insists that the New Testament tells me what the Old Testament means because the course of redemptive history runs from promise to fulfillment. That is why our hermeneutic must be Christ-centered, not Israel-centered.
Why do you believe that any genuine believer who holds to a future redemption for the nation of Israel is not Christ-centered in their hermeneutic?Did Paul believe/say that in Romans 9-11?
If you take Paul's explanantion for the hardening of the nation of Israel on it's face and allow the plain meaning of the text to speak then his reference to Isa.59:20 (that the nation of Israel will receive ,through God's grace, Christ as Israel's true Messiah). That's about as Christ-centerd as one can get!
Paul warns us Gentiles not to get prideful about our grace-wrought relationship to the God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.(Rom.11:17-22)
Please read my book A Case for Amillennialism. I believe that one of signs of the end of the age is the conversion of Israel! While I think the land promise has been fulfilled and then universalized, Paul tells us that God will show mercy upon his ancient people and before the end, he will graft them back into Christ.
This is why I am so frustrated with dispensationalists who don't take the time to read and understand what we teach, before they launch into criticisms of straw men. Sadly, MacArthur did this throughout his entire lecture.
So, God requires you to understand Him through a man-made grid? Which one is God's approved method? Does that mean the agency of the Spirit and the Word are insufficient for us to apprehend truth.
What's the point of the reformed doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripure? What did Luther mean when he said that Scripture is to be understood in the plain sense in which it's given...the sensus literalis... using literary devices/ rules of written communication as one would use in the normal use of grammar and language?
"Which one is God's approved method?" You seem to think yours is. All I'm asking for is a little hermeneutical humility. We do our best to try and ascertain what God intended in scripture - it's not that tough - as you say above - scripture is clear - it's our minds that are a bit foggy.
Thank you for a spirited and transparent discussion. It was a privilege to interact wih you both!
Soli Deo Gloria!
Peter
He employs this same straw-man argument in his book “The Battle for the Beginning” , published in 2001, with respect to the Framework interpretation of the creation days. He writes...
“The framework hypothesis is the direct result of making modern scientific theory a hermeneutical guideline by which to interpret Scripture. The basic presupposition behind the framework hypothesis is the notion that science speaks with more authority about origins and the age of the earth than Scripture does. Those who embrace such a view have in effect made science an authority over Scripture. They are permitting scientific hypotheses – mere human opinions that have no divine authority whatsoever – to be the hermeneutical rule by which Scripture is interpreted.”
LOL this is so far from what the Framework interpretation is about that it would be laughable if it were not predisposing so many people against an entirely exegetically derived position.
Someone once said "You don't have the right to debate a man until you can articulate his position to his satisfaction." I wish every seminary student was taught that. Without academic honesty there can be nothing but slander.
Cheers!
Joel
I really do not understand why JMac continues to misrepresent & slam everyone who does not see the end times the way he sees them.
I am becoming more & more confused as to why JMac continues to be invited to speak at Ligonier conferences & why he continues to be on the board of ACE.
What possible good does he see coming from his continued insulting of those who have welcomed him into reformed conferences & reformed fellowships?
I think the speech reveals how big a mistake it is (and one I was guilty of in the past) to let MacArthur define amillennialism for you.
Johnny Mac said that about Framework?
Makes me wonder if he even read any of Kline's books or articles. Mac's perception of Framework is far from what Dr. Kline actually presented in class.
You are bringing up a new subject and one worthy of addressing. However, I don't think the way you have stated the issue is quite on target, either. Dispensationalism and what is really a shakey articulation of justification by faith alone are reasons why - as someone above suggested - MacArthur should probably not be teamed up at conferences w/ Sproul, etc. I suspect Sproul invited him beginning in 1992 b/c MacArthur is biblically/theologically oriented (in contrast to most of evangelicalism) so Sproul uses MacArthur's popularity for him to expose more people to the ref'd faith.
It is kinda funny that MacArthur has got on board to oppose Tridentine theology when he himself has been disconcerting on justification. In the 80's, Moody Press published small, pb studies that condensed his sermons. In the little books on passages from Rom 5 and 8, MacArthur espoused the Roman view of justification. No one seemed to blink back then. I heard this on the radio in the early 90's when I was first learning justification and was thrown into confusion, thinking this is not what I was learning from Protestant (ref'd) systematics.
Using the Master's seminary library as I do, I got a book recently that had sermon notes in it written by a college age female dated Oct 06. I believe her notes were accurate b/c the sermon intro was just like a sermon I remembered him preaching in the early 90's. In this '06 sermon, he was using 2 Cor 5:17 and 2 Pet 1:4 of justification. This makes me think he is confusing justif w/ regeneration. The Lutheran Osiander did this and Calvin strongly denounced him in the Institutes.
MacArthur does not go as far as N Shepherd but does come too close. Sproul opposed Shepherd in the 70's but spoke glowingly of MacArthur's lordship salvation at a Ligonier conference in '93. Did Sproul not carefully read 'The Gospel according to Jesus' and discern the problematic exegesis at points? Given the little bit that I have heard from Sproul, I don't believe he has changed his position on Shepherd so it leaves me to think he simply has not read MacArthur closely.
MacArthur is a very clear speaker, but he is not a theologian or an astute exegete. I realize he has been used of God and has a heart for truth, but he is in need of a better education. None of us are infallible so we should all press on to a greater knowledge of God and faithful handling of his word.
ds