# John MacArthur and dispensationalism



## Sydnorphyn

I have heard rumors that JM is no longer a dispensationalist, is this fact or fiction?

John


----------



## AV1611

Would be a turn up for the books if it is true...


----------



## Sydnorphyn

*clearification*



AV1611 said:


> Would be a turn up for the books if it is true...



What do you mean?


----------



## Wannabee

What Josh said.

He doesn't even really claim to be dispensationalist anymore because the definition is too hard to nail down in different circles. He said that when people ask him if he's dispensational he replies that he doesn't even know what that means.

He sees a future for Israel as a nation. He is pretrib/premil. And he's dogmatic about it. But he doesn't think the horses in Revelation are really literal horses.


----------



## AV1611

Sydnorphyn said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would be a turn up for the books if it is true...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...


It would be a good thing


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Wannabee said:


> What Josh said.
> 
> He doesn't even really claim to be dispensationalist anymore because the definition is too hard to nail down in different circles. He said that when people ask him if he's dispensational he replies that he doesn't even know what that means.
> 
> He sees a future for Israel as a nation. He is pretrib/premil. And he's dogmatic about it. But he doesn't think the horses in Revelation are really literal horses.



So John Macarthur is not a Scofield-type Dispensationalist then? Is he a Progressive Dispensationalist?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

joshua said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Josh said.
> 
> He doesn't even really claim to be dispensationalist anymore because the definition is too hard to nail down in different circles. He said that when people ask him if he's dispensational he replies that he doesn't even know what that means.
> 
> He sees a future for Israel as a nation. He is pretrib/premil. And he's dogmatic about it. But he doesn't think the horses in Revelation are really literal horses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So John Macarthur is not a Scofield-type Dispensationalist then? Is he a Progressive Dispensationalist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Insofar I understand, I don't believe progressive dispensationalists go for the pre-trip rapture.
Click to expand...


Is that no to both (Scofield and Progressive)?


----------



## DMcFadden

In this year's Shepherd's Conference, he did indeed argue that very thing. His address, "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should be a Premillenialist" (MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing) made the point that a high view of Scripture and an emphasis upon the sovereignty of God naturally leads to a premillennial conclusion. MacArthur still referes to himself as a leaky dispensationalist.

The mixture of dispensational eschatology and Calvinist soteriology is not unique to MacArthur. S. Lewis Johnson, Curt Daniel ("The History and Theology of Calvinism" by Curt Daniel) and others affirm full soteriological Calvinism without adopting postmil or amil eschatology.

_S. Lewis Johnson Jr. (1915-2004), a conservative evangelical pastor and theologian, was for many years a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. Johnson was a moderate dispensationalist and a Five-point Calvinist in his soteriology. _


----------



## Wannabee

No to Scofield.

He would be pretty close to progressive. But I think he would refuse the label. Probably somewhere just shy of progressive, but with some reformed leanings that would be unfamiliar to many dispensationalists (i.e. - God's sovereignty in election). He also does not see eschatological significance in the Jews occupying Israel today. I don't think he would dismiss it as a possibility, but recently taught that looking for eschatological fulfillment in the current near east situation is folly. 

I don't think progressive dispensationalism is incompatible with the pre-trip/pre-mil scenario though.


----------



## bookslover

DMcFadden said:


> The mixture of dispensational eschatology and Calvinist soteriology is not unique to MacArthur. S. Lewis Johnson, Curt Daniel "The History and Theology of Calvinism" by Curt Daniel) and others affirm full soteriological Calvinism without adopting postmil or amil eschatology.



It's perfectly possible, of course, to be completely Reformed _and_ premillennial. Sometimes I think that more Reformed people aren't premil at least in part because dispensationalism poisoned the premil well a couple of centuries ago.


----------



## Preach

If someone is not in conformity to the WCF, how can he be completely Reformed? I was under the impression that anyone who held to Premil would have to take an exception before his Presbytery (if he was seeking licensure or ordination). Doesn't the WCF allow for only the one general resurrection?


----------



## Sydnorphyn

joshua said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Josh said.
> 
> He doesn't even really claim to be dispensationalist anymore because the definition is too hard to nail down in different circles. He said that when people ask him if he's dispensational he replies that he doesn't even know what that means.
> 
> He sees a future for Israel as a nation. He is pretrib/premil. And he's dogmatic about it. But he doesn't think the horses in Revelation are really literal horses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So John Macarthur is not a Scofield-type Dispensationalist then? Is he a Progressive Dispensationalist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Insofar I understand, I don't believe progressive dispensationalists go for the pre-trip rapture.
Click to expand...


Yes, all I know are pre-trib.


----------



## bookslover

Preach said:


> If someone is not in conformity to the WCF, how can he be completely Reformed? I was under the impression that anyone who held to Premil would have to take an exception before his Presbytery (if he was seeking licensure or ordination). Doesn't the WCF allow for only the one general resurrection?



The OPC (my denomination) has traditionally seen the wisdom of allowing all three of the basic eschatological views (pre, post, and a) to exist among its ministers and elders in the denomination.

Even if the WCF didn't exist, it would still be possible to be completely Reformed. All one has to do is to believe what the Bible teaches.


----------



## elnwood

joshua said:


> No. Insofar I understand, I don't believe progressive dispensationalists go for the pre-trip rapture.



I think most or all of the progressive dispensationalists (Blaising, Bock, Saucy) are pre-trib, though they mostly treat it as unimportant, and there are many PDs who are post-trib. One of the critiques of PD from classic dispensationalism is that it naturally leads to posttribulationism.


----------



## DMcFadden

elnwood said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Insofar I understand, I don't believe progressive dispensationalists go for the pre-trip rapture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most or all of the progressive dispensationalists (Blaising, Bock, Saucy) are pre-trib, though they mostly treat it as unimportant, and there are many PDs who are post-trib. One of the critiques of PD from classic dispensationalism is that it naturally leads to posttribulationism.
Click to expand...


Which is why PD has so more in common with historic premillennialism than with classic dispensationalism.


----------

