# MacArthur Causes a Stir



## tcalbrecht

Blogging from John MacArthur's Shepherd's Conference, Tim Challies writes that MacArthur caused quite a stir, especially with regard to his views on amillennialism:



> 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. ...
> 
> 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 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.



Kim Riddlebarger in his Riddleblog and another blog has additional comments.

The subject was also the topic a one Christian call-in program, Calling for Truth.

Is premillennialism, esp of the dispensational variety, really the most God-honoring eschatology for a Calvinist? MacArthur thinks so.


----------



## etexas

tcalbrecht said:


> Blogging from John MacArthur's Shepherd's Conference, Tim Challies writes that MacArthur caused quite a stir, especially with regard to his views on amillennialism:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Riddlebarger in his Riddleblog and another blog has additional comments.
> 
> The subject was also the topic a one Christian call-in program, Calling for Truth.
> 
> Is premillennialism, esp of the dispensational variety, really the most God-honoring eschatology for a Calvinist? MacArthur thinks so.


Wow........way to get everyones attention! I am sure no ones chins were in their drinks!


----------



## Founded on the Rock

This is why MacArthur bothers me to no end, he is SOO arrogant about EVERYTHING he believes. In the probably 10 times or so I have been to his church I have heard him say, "it is obvious, it is right there in Scripture!" about things like the millennium, infant baptism etc., all the while when he reads 1 Cor. 7, he just says what it really says is that the children are just under a holy influence.

I have no problem with MacArtuhr's convictions, I disagree with him, but he has every right to hold them. I respect what the man has done, he has been a greater worker for the Lord, and his knowledge far surpasses mine. But I simply cannot take the tone that he uses, even when discussing things like the Doctrines of Grace...


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I like John, but I'll disregard his premillenialism. Turns out he said it in front of several amillennial preachers there.


----------



## puritan lad

In the little that I've read about MacArthur's comments, he holds that Calvinists should be premillennial on the basis of Israel. He is stuck with the idea that "Israel after the flesh" is God's elect, and to deny this would be to deny God's sovereignty in election.

I would ask if the Pharisees and Judas were "elect".


----------



## py3ak

Ironically, E.P. Sanders addresses this very point in _Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People_, p.207:


> One is the traditional Jewish doctrine of election, which Paul denies. He appeals, to be sure, to God's covenant with Abraham, and thus his language is often appropriate to understanding the church as "true Israel." But his argument that the covenant "skips" from Abraham to Christ, and now includes those in Chrisst, but not Jews by descent, is in fact a flat denial of the election of Israel.



Leaving aside the question of Sanders' reliability, this at least makes clear that things are not so simple as Challies reports MacArthur as stating.


----------



## MrMerlin777

I like the man, and I'll give him points for having guts. But, still amillennial here.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

MrMerlin777 said:


> I like the man, and I'll give him points for having guts. But, still amillennial here.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Just talked to someone who was there. 

He said it.

ps. I became an amillennialist when and because I embraced divine sovereignty. There were predestinarian pre-mil (chiliasts) in the history of Reformed theology (e.g., Jos Meade and Piscator and Alsted) but there have been many who, I think John would agree, knew a little bit about Reformed theology, who weren't chiliast at all. I think that since the 19th century anyway (I don't know enough about the 18th century to say certainly) chiliasm has been the minority report among predestinarian types. I think I remember reading that R B Kuiper was shocked to find the degree to which there was chiliasm in the OPC when he got to WTS. 

If Jesus is, as we say, on the throne sovereignly administering his kingdom through his church and sovereignly saving his elect and sovereignly administering his providence generally (raising and dashing kings) this would seem to be a pretty serious non sequitur. 

rsc


----------



## Chris

> 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.



I would (humbly) suggest to JM that maybe, just maybe, we should focus our efforts on the former for a few more years - and in the meantime, maybe we should review what we (?) think (?) about the latter before we go starting any new movements....


----------



## Andrew P.C.

puritan lad said:


> I would ask if the Pharisees and Judas were "elect".




That's not how the dispensationals look at it. They don't think every jew from the past will be in heaven. It specifically deals with the rapture. 

Honestly, I'm still wondering if the rapture is in scripture. =/


----------



## ajrock2000

Founded on the Rock said:


> This is why MacArthur bothers me to no end, he is SOO arrogant about EVERYTHING he believes.



This is exactly the problem I have with MacArthur too. The same sort of attitude comes among a few dispensational pre-millers in my church too. Whenever I even allude to "the Israel of God" its like it turns the arrogant "I am right no matter what" switch on inside them. 



> 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.



Wow, after reading parts of MacArthur's commentary on Revelation, Hebrews, parts of Romans, and Daniel, he is absolutely no one to talk about "hunting for interpretations" 

Pre-Millennialism is just like the 'free-will' debate, they have absolutely no leg to stand on because nowhere in all of the gospels and epistles does it talk of Jesus reigning for 1,000 yrs and in a literal kingdom. Nowhere does it ever talk of any more comings than 2, and especially no salvation by heritage. One would think Jesus, Paul, or someone would say something of these things! Not only do they not, they say the opposite. I am amazed that JM just 'opens his bible' and sees it.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

ajrock2000 said:


> Pre-Millennialism is just like the 'free-will' debate, they have absolutely no leg to stand on because nowhere in all of the gospels and epistles does it talk of Jesus reigning for 1,000 yrs and in a literal kingdom. *Nowhere* does it ever talk of any more comings than 2, and *especially no salvation by heritage*. One would think Jesus, Paul, or someone would say something of these things! Not only do they not, they say the opposite. I am amazed that JM just 'opens his bible' and sees it.



Just to start off, Pre-mill has two different camps. The historic and dispie. The historic does not believe in the rapture, and the dispie does. Also, the dispie doesn't believe that the heritage of Israel will be saved but the people in the nation.

I still have alot to learn I know, but don't misrepresent the other sides.


----------



## puritan lad

Andrew P.C. said:


> That's not how the dispensationals look at it. They don't think every jew from the past will be in heaven. It specifically deals with the rapture.


True, but even then, it is only 144,000 of them. The dispensational view, pretty muched summed up, is that if you don't support Israel politically, God will curse you. (For the most part, I do, but not because of some false, Christless Covenant).



Andrew P.C. said:


> Honestly, I'm still wondering if the rapture is in scripture. =/


If you are refering to a secret "pre-trib" rapture, I haven't been able to find a hint of it in Scripture after exhaustive research.


----------



## ajrock2000

Andrew P.C. said:


> I still have alot to learn I know, but don't misrepresent the other sides.



I also have a lot to learn! I apologize if I didn't represent them correctly. I was just merely stating generalities to what they believe.



> The historic does not believe in the rapture, and the dispie does. Also, the dispie doesn't believe that the heritage of Israel will be saved but the people in the nation.



When you say 'people in the nation', does this mean people who are within the borders of Israel?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

ajrock2000 said:


> I also have a lot to learn! I apologize if I didn't represent them correctly. I was just merely stating generalities to what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> When you say 'people in the nation', does this mean people who are within the borders of Israel?



Specifically, the bloodline.

The dipies believe that the covenant of abraham is different then the one we have now.


----------



## Herald

Founded on the Rock said:


> This is why MacArthur bothers me to no end, he is SOO arrogant about EVERYTHING he believes. In the probably 10 times or so I have been to his church I have heard him say, "it is obvious, it is right there in Scripture!" about things like the millennium, infant baptism etc., all the while when he reads 1 Cor. 7, he just says what it really says is that the children are just under a holy influence.
> 
> I have no problem with MacArtuhr's convictions, I disagree with him, but he has every right to hold them. I respect what the man has done, he has been a greater worker for the Lord, and his knowledge far surpasses mine. But I simply cannot take the tone that he uses, even when discussing things like the Doctrines of Grace...




Brandon, what tone do you want him to take? If you were as convinced on a point of doctrine as MacArthur is, would you not take a strong stand? I believe MacArthur's confidence is mistaken for arrogance.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Brandon, what tone do you want him to take? If you were as convinced on a point of doctrine as MacArthur is, would you not take a strong stand? *I believe MacArthur's confidence is mistaken for arrogance*.


----------



## KMK

*Amil vs. A Future for Israel*

I also have a lot to learn.

I am confused by this statement:



> 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." ...



Is it impossible to be amil and also believe there is a future for Israel (Rom 11)? Are the two doctrines mutually exclusive?


----------



## etexas

KMK said:


> I also have a lot to learn.
> 
> I am confused by this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it impossible to be amil and also believe there is a future for Israel (Rom 11)? Are the two doctrines mutually exclusive?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I follow Jesus said:


>




Lots of Amil folk have believed in the future conversion of many Jews.

If you're asking about a _distinct_ future for national Israel, outside of Christ, as if the national covenant made at Sinai is still in effect, as if the Mosaic cultus is to be reinstated, that's much more problematic.

There's this.

rsc


----------



## Blue Tick

Does Mac believe in the Pre-Rapture as well?


----------



## BlackCalvinist

puritan lad said:


> True, but even then, it is only 144,000 of them.



That's not true. In Dispensational theology, the 144,000 are Jewish evangelists, but not the only Jews saved during the 'tribulation period'.


----------



## bookslover

puritan lad said:


> If you are refering to a secret "pre-trib" rapture, I haven't been able to find a hint of it in Scripture after exhaustive research.



Here's the rapture passage, in context. There's nothing "secret" about it, that's for sure:

_But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, *will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air*, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore, encourage one another with these words._ (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, emphasis mine)


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Andrew P.C. said:


> Honestly, I'm still wondering if the rapture is in scripture. =/



Yes....and it's actually dealt with at 1 Thess. 4:13-17. All orthodox positions on the 2nd coming have a 'rapture' - it simply means 'caught up', which is what we'll be to meet Christ in the air at Christ's return.


----------



## bookslover

I always say, with regard to eschatology, that, whichever of the three main positions one holds to, he should hold it sincerely, but lightly. The fact that these three main positions (premil, postmil, and amil) have been teased out of the same biblical material by the Church over the centuries should tell us that (1) holding one's position sincerely but lightly is the way to go; and (2) none of us knows as much about eschatology as we like to think we do.

For the record, I'm historic premil (no Dispensational).


----------



## BlackCalvinist

This is no surprise to anyone who attended Together for the Gospel. MacArthur gave a little premill-schpeil there too (5-6 min worth...). I think everybody just gave him a break...because he's MacArthur.

And he said this with Dever, Mahaney, Lig and Mohler on stage with him, with Sproul and Piper (even though Piper and Dever are premill) sitting not more than 12 feet away on the floor and 3000 pastors and other folk filling up the room.


----------



## bookslover

BlackCalvinist said:


> And he said this with Dever, Mahaney, Lig and Mohler on stage with him, with Sproul and Piper (even though Piper and Dever are premill) sitting not more than 12 feet away on the floor and 3000 pastors and other folk filling up the room.



Yeah, he's pretty fearless. That's one of the things I like about him. If only we could get him totally in the Reformed camp. Despite his solid Reformed soteriology, I think there's just too much of the "independent Baptist fundy" in him (probably inherited from his dad) for him to come all the way over.


----------



## Founded on the Rock

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Brandon, what tone do you want him to take? If you were as convinced on a point of doctrine as MacArthur is, would you not take a strong stand? I believe MacArthur's confidence is mistaken for arrogance.



Mr. Brown, I want him to deal respectfully with someone else's position. I don't mind the fact that he disagrees with covenant theology, or infant baptism.

In the sermons that I have heard of MacArthur, and the services I have physically attended, he IS arrogant about some of the things he believes. To say that EVERYTHING that he believes is so black and white is quite offensive, simplistic, and arrogant.

You would feel offended if I said, infant baptism is right there in the text, its just so obvious!! (with the attitude of ANYBODY could see that, you moron!) I was not there, but my girlfriend told me that he said that the rapture of the Church is just SO clear in Scripture, you can't miss it! He went on to ridicule those who held to Post-Millenialism or Amillenialism.

I don't care if he disagree's with a position strongly. He is just bombastic and many times, does not represent the other side well because it seems that he simply assumes he is right.

Again though, much of MacArthur's ministry IS and HAS been good. I appreciate the work that he has done and it has directly impacted my growth. I do not just want to sling mud at a great man of God just because. I pray that God continue to bless MacArthur's ministry. I just feel that he needs to be more respectful of the broader Christian community.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Lest one continually harp on MacArthur's bad points:

http://pics.theologicallycorrect.com/webmaster/photos/displayimage.php?album=9&pos=39

Right before John MacArthur and I took this pic, the guy in front of me had a short convo with MacArthur and then took out his cell phone and started dialing a number - then handed it to Johnny Mac. 

MacArthur proceeded to leave an extremely encouraging message on the phone to the person (apparently an elder). I was standing there like 'wooow. that's cool.' And he took the time to meet up with everyone (unlike Sproul who simply ran out the side door  ). Glad I got the chance to at least shake his hand this side of eternity.


----------



## Herald

Founded on the Rock said:


> Mr. Brown, I want him to deal respectfully with someone else's position. I don't mind the fact that he disagrees with covenant theology, or infant baptism.
> 
> In the sermons that I have heard of MacArthur, and the services I have physically attended, he IS arrogant about some of the things he believes. To say that EVERYTHING that he believes is so black and white is quite offensive, simplistic, and arrogant.
> 
> You would feel offended if I said, infant baptism is right there in the text, its just so obvious!! (with the attitude of ANYBODY could see that, you moron!) I was not there, but my girlfriend told me that he said that the rapture of the Church is just SO clear in Scripture, you can't miss it! He went on to ridicule those who held to Post-Millenialism or Amillenialism.
> 
> I don't care if he disagree's with a position strongly. He is just bombastic and many times, does not represent the other side well because it seems that he simply assumes he is right.
> 
> Again though, much of MacArthur's ministry IS and HAS been good. I appreciate the work that he has done and it has directly impacted my growth. I do not just want to sling mud at a great man of God just because. I pray that God continue to bless MacArthur's ministry. I just feel that he needs to be more respectful of the broader Christian community.



Brandon, with all due respect, you haven't been a member of the PB that long. Read some of the threads on paedo baptism. Many of the posts have been blunt. I have no problem with that. I have sat under Dr. MacArthur's teaching, both at Grace Community and the college where I attended. I see a different man than you. I heard a confident man, convinced that the scriptures were clear. Arrogance? I didn't sense a lick of it.

Perhaps the reason that Dr. MacArthur seems arrogant to you is due to the fact that you are not as convinced in aspects of your theology? It may be offensive to you that someone is convinced in theirs. Could it be a form of jealousy? I will admit that there have been times that I was jealous of some of my Presbyterian brethren. Some are at total peace with Covenant Theology from A to Z while I found myself in flux on many points of doctrine. Things are different now, but they weren't always that way.


----------



## puritan lad

bookslover said:


> Here's the rapture passage, in context. There's nothing "secret" about it, that's for sure:
> 
> _But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, *will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air*, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore, encourage one another with these words._ (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, emphasis mine)


Note also that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 teaches a Resurrection. That is a huge problem for pre-tribbers, since their "first resurrection" includes the tribulation saint (Rev. 20:4-6). How can this be if the first resurrection takes place before the tribulation even begins?


----------



## tcalbrecht

R. Scott Clark said:


> Lots of Amil folk have believed in the future conversion of many Jews.
> 
> If you're asking about a _distinct_ future for national Israel, outside of Christ, as if the national covenant made at Sinai is still in effect, as if the Mosaic cultus is to be reinstated, that's much more problematic.
> 
> There's this.
> 
> rsc




As do many postmils and historic premils. It's curious that MacArthur seemed to only single out the amils for scorn.

The uniqueness of dispie theology is the nationalistic/cultic flavor of the future Jewish experience, esp. during the earthly millennium when the Levitical priesthood and temple sacrifices will be reinstituted. 

Has MacArthur's uncontrolled dispensationalism driven him to misunderstand election wrt Israel, or does he really believe that the doctrine of election will logically lead a person to a dispie view of Israel and the future?

I wonder if MacArthur also believes in the Great Tribulation massacre of 2/3 of the Jews living in Palestine ala Walvoord's interpretation of Zechariah 13:8,9?


----------



## KMK

R. Scott Clark said:


> Lots of Amil folk have believed in the future conversion of many Jews.
> 
> If you're asking about a _distinct_ future for national Israel, outside of Christ, as if the national covenant made at Sinai is still in effect, as if the Mosaic cultus is to be reinstated, that's much more problematic.
> 
> There's this.
> 
> rsc



Excellent article, Dr. Clark! (I bookmarked it)


----------



## KMK

bookslover said:


> I always say, with regard to eschatology, that, whichever of the three main positions one holds to, he should hold it sincerely, but lightly. The fact that these three main positions (premil, postmil, and amil) have been teased out of the same biblical material by the Church over the centuries should tell us that (1) holding one's position sincerely but lightly is the way to go; and (2) none of us knows as much about eschatology as we like to think we do.
> 
> For the record, I'm historic premil (no Dispensational).



 Great words of wisdom for all of us to keep in mind. Do you think the church will ever sort this issue out like she did with the doctrines of the Trinity and Salvation by Faith Alone?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

bookslover said:


> Yeah, he's pretty fearless. That's one of the things I like about him. If only we could get him totally in the Reformed camp. Despite his solid Reformed soteriology, I think there's just too much of the "independent Baptist fundy" in him (probably inherited from his dad) for him to come all the way over.



I have pondered this myself and wonder what it would take to really convince someone like J-Mac to change?

Just think what is at stake. IF MacArthur changed his dispensational views on Israel (and/or his views on baptism and church government), think of all the written works that would need to be revised, qualified, or simply eliminated. Think of all the sermons that he himself would all of a sudden not agree with. Think of the officers at Grace church who would all of a sudden be at odds with their Pastor. Think of the Masters Seminary and the curriculums and materials and such that would need revised. I know such consequences _should not _affect our beliefs and doctrinal positions, but deep down they must have a strong say in how far we will allow our minds to go in considering personal revisions.

For most of us, the greatest consequence we face when revising our position is simply changing churches (which don’t get me wrong, such is very stressful and sad). But to consider what a guy like J-Mac has done and continues to do, such revisions would have _astronomical _consequences and ripple effects. I just can’t see such taking place, or rather do not believe it will happen for such reasons. I think water changing into wine is more likely and believable than for a guy like John MacArthur to revise his positions to all of sudden align with the reformed confessions (but with God all things are indeed possible).

All this considering, it also shows the dangers of giving too much control to one man. I love Rev. MacArthur as a fellow brother and respected teacher and have benefited greatly by many of his books, sermons, and lectures, but he of all people is about as close as one gets to being a protestant version of a Pope (in company with Chuck Smith, Rick Warren, and CJ Mahaney).


----------



## Founded on the Rock

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Brandon, with all due respect, you haven't been a member of the PB that long. Read some of the threads on paedo baptism. Many of the posts have been blunt. I have no problem with that. I have sat under Dr. MacArthur's teaching, both at Grace Community and the college where I attended. I see a different man than you. I heard a confident man, convinced that the scriptures were clear. Arrogance? I didn't sense a lick of it.
> 
> Perhaps the reason that Dr. MacArthur seems arrogant to you is due to the fact that you are not as convinced in aspects of your theology? It may be offensive to you that someone is convinced in theirs. Could it be a form of jealousy? I will admit that there have been times that I was jealous of some of my Presbyterian brethren. Some are at total peace with Covenant Theology from A to Z while I found myself in flux on many points of doctrine. Things are different now, but they weren't always that way.



Mr. Brown,

I understand that being blunt is something that is not wrong or arrogant. But I believe Dr. MacArthur to be more than blunt, but ungracious many times.

Again, I don't want it to sound like I hate the man, as I have expressed before. I have no problem with him disagreeing with me. I can still hold to my position and not be jealous. I just feel that the way in which he says things is extremely arrogant. I may be wrong, but this is the way that I have heard him. Maybe the reason I get this impression is because the times I have heard him preach, it has been on the issue of children salvation/infant baptism, and eschatology. Either way, I know blunt and arrogant, I see Dr. MacArthur at times to be arrogant. I would contrast MacArthur with James White. I LOVE White and he is blunt and straightforward many times. I felt that in his debate with Dr. Shishko that he was very strong and blunt, but gracious. But I feel MacArthur is not gracious when he makes statements particularly about baptism and eschatology.

I thank you for pointing that out though, since many times jealousy and hatred can easily seep out in crticism  

Dr. MacArthur has done many great things in his ministry. I don't wish to keep incesantly posting about someone's weak points, because I love MacArthur. I consider him a great man of God and I have a lot to learn from him! I just wanted to explain my opinion of him as a pastor. All in all, I do thank God for the ministry of John MacArthur


----------



## AV1611

Blueridge reformer said:


> I like John, but I'll disregard his premillenialism.



I would apply this to Dr. Gill also


----------



## tcalbrecht

Blueridge reformer said:


> I like John, but I'll disregard his premillenialism. Turns out he said it in front of several amillennial preachers there.



Speaking as a Reformed person, if it were just a matter of premil vs. amil or postmil, I would not have a particular problem.

But MacArthur's problem is dispensationalism, a particularly aberrational even heretical form of premillennialism. 

This is the problem I have with calling MacArthur "Reformed". He is not. His soteriology and ecclesiology as well as eschatology are plainly defective by his confessed understanding of Israel and the church, and the nature of the future millennial kingdom.


----------



## puritan lad

BlackCalvinist said:


> That's not true. In Dispensational theology, the 144,000 are Jewish evangelists, but not the only Jews saved during the 'tribulation period'.


I stand corrected (I guess it depends on who you ask). All this is done after the Holy Spirit leaves, correct?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

AV1611 said:


> I would apply this to Dr. Gill also



And to brother Spurgeon as well.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

puritan lad said:


> I stand corrected (I guess it depends on who you ask). All this is done after the Holy Spirit leaves, correct?



No, _only_ the Holy Spirit's restraining influence on evil is taken out of the way (He who restrains in 2 Thess. 2) so that the man of sin (the antiChrist) can appear.


----------



## AV1611

Blueridge reformer said:


> And to brother Spurgeon as well.



And Augustus Toplady


----------



## ajrock2000

BlackCalvinist said:


> And he said this with Dever, Mahaney, Lig and Mohler on stage with him, with Sproul and Piper (even though Piper and Dever are premill) sitting not more than 12 feet away on the floor and 3000 pastors and other folk filling up the room.



Ah, I never knew what Piper was, I was looking for eschatology articles on his site, but couldn't find any. What is RC Sprouls end time view? Is he a full-pretorist? I have his bible, but he overviews them all, so I don't really know which one he holds to.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Asa, I think RC (Sr.) is a partial preterist, as per his book, _The Last Days according to Jesus_, if my memory is correct (I don't have it anymore, and it was 5 or 6 years ago I read it). A link with some of his views: http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/s/sproul-rc_last-days-Jesus.html. 

Myself, I hold to the amil.

Steve


----------



## ajrock2000

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Asa, I think RC (Sr.) is a partial preterist, as per his book, _The Last Days according to Jesus_, if my memory is correct (I don't have it anymore, and it was 5 or 6 years ago I read it). A link with some of his views: http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/s/sproul-rc_last-days-Jesus.html.
> 
> Myself, I hold to the amil.
> 
> Steve



Thanks!

I also hold to the amil position (as you may have noticed).


----------



## bookslover

KMK said:


> Great words of wisdom for all of us to keep in mind. Do you think the church will ever sort this issue out like she did with the doctrines of the Trinity and Salvation by Faith Alone?



That would be nice, but if the Church hasn't been able to figure it out in the last nearly 2,000 years, I doubt if, this side of eternity, the Church is even _meant_ to have it figured out. That's part of what it means to live by faith, I guess.

Especially, since, as I said, the Bible contains just enough eschatological information to give the Church 3 competing views.


----------



## bookslover

tcalbrecht said:


> But MacArthur's problem is dispensationalism, a particularly aberrational even heretical form of premillennialism.



Speaking as a historic premil myself, I'd hesitate to call dispensationalism a heretical form of premillennialism, since premillennialism can exist without dispensationalism (and does!), but not vice versa.

My personal opinion as to why most Reformed folks are against the historic premil view, by the way, is that it's difficult to separate, in their minds premillennialism from dispensationalism, in many cases. 

Thanks for poisoning the premillennial well, Mr. Darby!


----------



## turmeric

It's hit the Riddleblog.


----------



## beej6

My word for a such a great man as Mr. Macarthur re: his doctrine is "Reformed-friendly." He's probably the most prominent Reformed-friendly pastor out there...

Perhaps his dispensationalism is his connection to the evangelical world at large...


----------



## tcalbrecht

bookslover said:


> Speaking as a historic premil myself, I'd hesitate to call dispensationalism a heretical form of premillennialism, since premillennialism can exist without dispensationalism (and does!), but not vice versa.
> 
> My personal opinion as to why most Reformed folks are against the historic premil view, by the way, is that it's difficult to separate, in their minds premillennialism from dispensationalism, in many cases.
> 
> Thanks for poisoning the premillennial well, Mr. Darby!



Would you agree that dispensationalism an aberrant form of premillennialism?

I've always been curious about the nature of the millennium in the historic premil scheme.

Christ is on earth physically. Where is He located? What is He doing? Is the temple standing or no? Are there sacrifices being conducted ala Ezekiel 40-48? Who inhabits the millennial kingdom with Christ? Resurrected saints? Pre-resurrection saints? Are saints who die immediately resurrected? Are folks marrying and giving in marriage? Are there unsaved living there as well? Who does Satan muster for the final revolt in Rev. 20:8? (Forgive me if my knowledge of dispensationalism is coloring these issues.)

It take it that the attraction to the premil theory for some is the more literal interpretion of certain OT prophecies as well as Rev. 20. How does one draw the line so as to not fall in the error of dispensationalism?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

bookslover said:


> Speaking as a historic premil myself, I'd hesitate to call dispensationalism a heretical form of premillennialism, since premillennialism can exist without dispensationalism (and does!), but not vice versa.
> 
> My personal opinion as to why most Reformed folks are against the historic premil view, by the way, is that it's difficult to separate, in their minds premillennialism from dispensationalism, in many cases.
> 
> Thanks for poisoning the premillennial well, Mr. Darby!



Here is a quote:

"While often popularly confused with 'dispensational premillennialism' with but a mere disagreement as to the timing of the 'rapture,' historic premillennialism is, in actuality, a completely different eschatological system, largely rejecting the whole dispensational understanding of redemptive history."


http://www.reformedreader.org/mchart.htm


----------



## ajrock2000

Andrew P.C. said:


> http://www.reformedreader.org/mchart.htm



Great link, thanks.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

ajrock2000 said:


> Great link, thanks.



Honestly, I found it from a post by Mr. Bill Brown. Thanks Bill where ever you are.


----------



## panicbird

The audio of MacArthur's address is available for download here for $2.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

tcalbrecht said:


> Christ is on earth physically. Where is He located? What is He doing?



Scripture doesn't go into detail on them - since it's silent, you should be too. 

Wisdom.

KJG


----------



## tcalbrecht

BlackCalvinist said:


> Scripture doesn't go into detail on them - since it's silent, you should be too.
> 
> Wisdom.
> 
> KJG



The dispensationalists seem to think there is plenty of detail, esp. in the OT.  In fact since the NT nowhere has Christ reigning physically on the earth in a future kingdom, the premil view (of every stripe) seems to be wholly based on a partial literal interpretation of some OT prophecies. Perhaps the distinction betwen avrious premil schemes is just a matter of degrees.

There are significant issues with the premil scheme that need to be addressed, such as the matter of who exactly inhabits the earthly millennium, the issue of sin, it effects and resolution, etc.


----------



## puritan lad

BlackCalvinist said:


> No, _only_ the Holy Spirit's restraining influence on evil is taken out of the way (He who restrains in 2 Thess. 2) so that the man of sin (the antiChrist) can appear.


I'm familiar with this argument. Aside from the fact that 2 Thess. 2 makes no mention of either the "Holy Spirit" or "antichrist", it clearly says that "He" (the person) is out of the way, not merely his influence. Of course, that may be splitting hairs, but don't forget that Paul tells the Thessalonians that "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work" in the First Century. Using 2 Thess. 2 as a support for premillennialism requires some creative eisogesis.


----------



## tcalbrecht

BlackCalvinist said:


> No, _only_ the Holy Spirit's restraining influence on evil is taken out of the way (He who restrains in 2 Thess. 2) so that the man of sin (the antiChrist) can appear.



Our course the text does not support that concept:



> For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.



One typically does not refer to a characteristic, "restraining influence", as "he".


----------



## BlackCalvinist

puritan lad said:


> I'm familiar with this argument. Aside from the fact that 2 Thess. 2 makes no mention of either the "Holy Spirit" or "antichrist", it clearly says that "He" (the person) is out of the way, not merely his influence. Of course, that may be splitting hairs, but don't forget that Paul tells the Thessalonians that "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work" in the First Century. Using 2 Thess. 2 as a support for premillennialism requires some creative eisogesis.



Not really. 

2 Thess. talks about a man who is coming who will set himself up in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. No eisogesis necessary - we already know the identity from the rest of the scriptures (analogy of faith).


----------



## BlackCalvinist

tcalbrecht said:


> The dispensationalists seem to think there is plenty of detail, esp. in the OT.



Some, not all. The lunatic fringe as basis for judging the rest isn't a fair argument.

We've been down this road already back in 2004-5.



> There are significant issues with the premil scheme that need to be addressed, such as the matter of who exactly inhabits the earthly millennium, the issue of sin, it effects and resolution, etc.



All of those things _have_ been addressed in premillennialism - both historic (i.e. Ladd) and plenty with the dispensational side.

J.O. Buswell did some work on it as well (Bible Presbyterian Churches). Familiar with him ?


----------



## B.J.

Johnny Mac said in his sermon that there is such a thing as "Jewish DNA. "


----------



## BlackCalvinist

tcalbrecht said:


> Our course the text does not support that concept:
> 
> 
> 
> One typically does not refer to a characteristic, "restraining influence", as "he".



My hand in the way of a falling bookshelf is a restraining influence from the shelf falling to the ground. Yet, if you were to describe it, you would call me 'he who holds up the bookshelf'. 

Context established and very possible, thanks.


----------



## Chris

bookslover said:


> I doubt if, this side of eternity, the Church is even _meant_ to have it figured out. That's part of what it means to live by faith, I guess.
> .



Amen, and Amen. 

Since when was it wrong to say 'I don't know' about things we simply don't know?


----------

