# John Macarthur...no Sabbath



## OPC'n (Sep 29, 2019)

I was really surprised to hear that Dr. Macarthur doesn't believe in the Sabbath...ok no I wasn't since Dispensationalism seems to weave itself into some of his beliefs. I could only listen to minute 30 before I just couldn't listen any longer. He was talking about how Jesus abrogated the 4th Commandment. I used to believe the same thing until I did a very in-depth study on it and learned from Calvin and others here on PB. In any case, he does have some strange ideas that I had never heard of. I think we should pray for God to convict his heart so that he might know the joy of the Sabbath and teach his congregation to observe the Sabbath. Now if at the end of this sermon he says he believes in the Sabbath, then please inform me. I just couldn't listen any longer to what he was saying.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 30, 2019)

I share your frustration, Sarah. It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise good, theologically conservative people engage in #FourthCommandmentDenial. The arguments of #FourthCommandmentDeniers are complete nonsense and have been refuted about a zillion times in the past. Thus, I can only attribute its hold on people to a) Dispensationalism, b) increased worldliness in the church.


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 30, 2019)

It is sad that someone who gets so much right can get so much very, very wrong.

His arguments here are nothing new.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 30, 2019)

True. And not limited to the non reformed. What in effect is the difference other than consistency between someone like Macarthur and Sproul Sr. at the end of the day when they are golfing buddies on Lord's Day afternoons? 


Tom Hart said:


> It is sad that someone who gets so much right can get so much very, very wrong.
> 
> His arguments here are nothing new.

Reactions: Like 4 | Sad 1


----------



## lynnie (Sep 30, 2019)

Aside from the main subject, I don't think it has anything to with his Dispensational beliefs. I've known many many Dispensationalists and spent time in the PCA where many exceptions abounded inc. elders, and I don't think there is any correlation. There are Calvinists who think it was at least partially abrogated, and Dispensationalists who are very hooked on Sunday set aside. Just my anecdotal experience.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Susan777 (Sep 30, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Aside from the main subject, I don't think it has anything to with his Dispensational beliefs. I've known many many Dispensationalists and spent time in the PCA where many exceptions abounded inc. elders, and I don't think there is any correlation. There are Calvinists who think it was at least partially abrogated, and Dispensationalists who are very hooked on Sunday set aside. Just my anecdotal experience.


It’s interesting that the mennonites all around me observe the sabbath faithfully yet I hardly know any Reformed who honor the day.

Reactions: Amen 2 | Sad 1


----------



## earl40 (Sep 30, 2019)

I listened to this a couple of weeks ago and it was confusing. He seems to simply replace the word sabbath with the words Lord's day, and gives a command one ought to devote Sunday to God as creator.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Oct 1, 2019)

I was in a MacArthur network church at the start of my Christian journey and was taught repeatedly that if an OT command is not restated in the NT, it should be considered abrogated. The emphasis on Sunday morning attendance was often derived from the Hebrews 10:25 command not to forsake the gathering. 

In short, I think MacArthur is being entirely consistent with his theological convictions here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 1, 2019)

Beastiality is not mentioned in the New Testament. It is in the Old. Does that mean...? In general it may be classified under Commandment 7, maybe. But as one of my old buddies has noted, You break one you break them all. Jame's said the same thing. It is a Law set in creation. Even before the decalogue was given.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 1, 2019)

I also know people who do think the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament. Here is a portion of a blog I posted. I posted some of it from Richard Barcellos' In Defense of the Decalogue I think. I can't remember. I have slept since then. But this is the last quote on the blog post. The blog post is a Reformed Baptist defense for the Sabbath. Yes, I got his permission to post it. It may be the article in the Reformed Baptist Review. I can't remember. 


Reformed Baptist Theological Review
vl. 1.2 A Sabbath Remains.. The Place of Hebrews 4:9 in the New Testament’s Witness to the Lord’s Day by Robert P. Martin
(Heb 4:9) There remaineth therefore a _rest_ to the people of God.

In it he notes the Word used here is σαββατισμός and not κατάπαυσις

(rest).
G4520
σαββατισμός
sabbatismos

This is an obscure term evidently that is used in just a few other places outside of the scriptures but used only once in the New Testament. Robert Martin says,

“I think that it is of interest that “in each of these places the term [σαββατισμός] denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath,” i.e., not “a Sabbath rest” as a state that is entered into but “a Sabbath-keeping” as a practice that is observed. This, of course, corresponds to the word’s morphology, for the suffix -μός indicates an action and not just a state. see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 151.
Reformed Baptist Theological Review Vl. 1;2 p.5

In other words there is still a 1 in 7 where we are still required to observe a Sabbath day.


https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...he-sabbath-concerning-colossians-and-hebrews/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 1, 2019)

I have noticed that in more Reformed circles where the Sabbath is disregarded there is also a highly underdeveloped view of natural law and a Biblicist emphasis on everything having to be explicitly spelt out in order to be valid.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> and a Biblicist emphasis on everything having to be explicitly spelt out in order to be valid.



That could have been taken from any Socianist manual.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 1, 2019)

TheInquirer said:


> I was in a MacArthur network church at the start of my Christian journey and was taught repeatedly that if an OT command is not restated in the NT, it should be considered abrogated. The emphasis on Sunday morning attendance was often derived from the Hebrews 10:25 command not to forsake the gathering.


I have heard this too. Regarding the Sabbath it is curious, since it is certainly mentioned in the New Testament. But then you'll get odd interpretations of what Christ means by speaking of himself as the Lord of the Sabbath.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 2, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> It is sad that someone who gets so much right can get so much very, very wrong.


It seems to me, Tom, that the Canadian rugby team has been influenced by dispensationalism. When they recently played the All Blacks at the RWC, they were thoroughly "left behind"  I could not resist 

Seriously you make an important point. When I talk to Masters Seminary graduates, I find we can talk about important Calvinistic doctrines. But when it comes to weighty matters such as the one covenant of grace, they resort to their dispensationalism and tell me I am imposing my system on the Bible.

Likewise, I have a great respect of the expository preaching of Steve Lawson. But even Steve's dispensationalism limits the richness of Biblical exposition.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 2, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am imposing my system on the Bible.



I honestly tire of this retort, and not just in this context. This is such a non-argument, as if Dispensationalism were not itself a system! It’s meant to shut down dialogue, because everything anyone says could be “refuted” by saying, “Well, if only you weren’t biased and imposing your bias...” But what does that even mean? It’s just such an easy, cheap thing to say, and can be used to avoid engagement in any context. “Well, you only think the sky is blue because you’re imposing your system of colors upon the sky.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 3, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It seems to me, Tom, that the Canadian rugby team has been influenced by dispensationalism. When they recently played the All Blacks at the RWC, they were thoroughly "left behind"  I could not resist


Canada has a rugby team? I'd forgotten!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 3, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This is such a non-argument, as if Dispensationalism were not itself a system!


Agreed. In reality it is easy to shoot down. Ask them why they impose their system on the Bible and have animal sacrifices in a future millennium. Is not Christ's once for all sacrifice sufficient? John MacArthur wrote a book "Our sufficiency in Christ". He could show that Christ is fully sufficient by rejecting animal sacrifices in a millennium!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos (Oct 3, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Aside from the main subject, I don't think it has anything to with his Dispensational beliefs. I've known many many Dispensationalists and spent time in the PCA where many exceptions abounded inc. elders, and I don't think there is any correlation. There are Calvinists who think it was at least partially abrogated, and Dispensationalists who are very hooked on Sunday set aside. Just my anecdotal experience.


With respect, but it absolutely has everything to do with Dispensationalism. The irony of Dispensationalists is that they are pretty consistent on gathering on the Lord's Day. But their antinomian views are a direct result of their hermeneutic and theological commitments.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2019)

Also keep in mind that dispensationalism itself is evolving. The progessive dispensationalists, while wrong, are willing to adjust their system.


----------



## B.L. (Oct 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Also keep in mind that dispensationalism itself is evolving. The progessive dispensationalists, while wrong, are willing to adjust their system.



While I know this is true among the elite in academia, how common do you think this evolving view is among the laity? In my area, which is dominated by dispensationalists, nearly all that I've ever come in contact with are the classical old school variety with their _Scofield Reference Bibles_, etc. 

At what point is a dispensationalist no longer a dispensationalist? The evolving changing definitions seem problematic to me. 

I like Samuel Waldron's comment "when one's definition of an apple is so broad that by that definition tomatoes are apples, there is something inadequate about that definition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Oct 3, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I honestly tire of this retort, and not just in this context. This is such a non-argument, as if Dispensationalism were not itself a system! It’s meant to shut down dialogue, because everything anyone says could be “refuted” by saying, “Well, if only you weren’t biased and imposing your bias...” But what does that even mean? It’s just such an easy, cheap thing to say, and can be used to avoid engagement in any context. “Well, you only think the sky is blue because you’re imposing your system of colors upon the sky.”


The "sky is blue" is an interesting example because in this case, we actually are imposing our system of colors on the Bible. I can't think of anywhere where the Bible refers to the sky as blue; it can be "bronze" (in the sense of bright and shiny and therefore unlikely to deliver rain. And the Biblical "red" has a much larger color palette that includes normal horse colors, like chestnut (see Zech 1:8). Translating color words into another language is notoriously difficult because there is no objective standard of division - our red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet spectrum is somewhat arbitrary.​


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> how common do you think this evolving view is among the laity? In my area, which is dominated by dispensationalists, nearly all that I've ever come in contact with are the classical old school variety with their _Scofield Reference Bibles_, etc.



No idea. I grew up in several pre-trib churches and never heard a sermon on animal sacrifices in the Millennium. 


B.L. McDonald said:


> At what point is a dispensationalist no longer a dispensationalist?



When they can affirm that God can deal with both church and Israel in the same time period. That's the whole point behind the pre-trib rapture.


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Oct 3, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> The "sky is blue" is an interesting example because in this case, we actually are imposing our system of colors on the Bible. I can't think of anywhere where the Bible refers to the sky as blue; it can be "bronze" (in the sense of bright and shiny and therefore unlikely to deliver rain. And the Biblical "red" has a much larger color palette that includes normal horse colors, like chestnut (see Zech 1:8). Translating color words into another language is notoriously difficult because there is no objective standard of division - our red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-
> violet spectrum is somewhat arbitrary.​



It would have been so much easier if they had just indicated what the UV-Vis absorbance spectrum was, or gave a wavelength, or... 

"I saw in the night, and behold, a man riding on a horse absorbing 300-600 nm wavelength light! He was standing among the myrtle trees in the glen, and behind him were a 300-600 nm absorbing horse, a 300-575 and 620-750 nm absorbing horse and a horse that absorbed no light."

There. All biases removed. I'm sure it reads much better now.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 3


----------



## Matthew1344 (Oct 3, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> True. And not limited to the non reformed. What in effect is the difference other than consistency between someone like Macarthur and Sproul Sr. at the end of the day *when they are golfing buddies on Lord's Day afternoons*?



They golfed on Sundays?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 3, 2019)

I think I read that; but if not, neither would in principle have any objection. Others have said here on PB that Sproul golfed on the Lord's Day. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/do-you-plan-on-celebrating-christmas.88256/#post-1091254


Matthew1344 said:


> They golfed on Sundays?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 5, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think I read that; but if not, neither would in principle have any objection. Others have said here on PB that Sproul golfed on the Lord's Day. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/do-you-plan-on-celebrating-christmas.88256/#post-1091254



Interestingly, Ligonier has an article by Joel Beeke on their website in which he does state that playing golf and other such activities is a violation of the Sabbath. I am not sure that this article has any bearing on understanding R. C. Sproul's opinions on the subject, however.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 5, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Interestingly, Ligonier has an article by Joel Beeke on their website in which he does state that playing golf and other such activities is a violation of the Sabbath. I am not sure that this article has any bearing on understanding R. C. Sproul's opinions on the subject, however.



Sproul now has a perfect understanding of the Sabbath

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Oct 5, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Interestingly, Ligonier has an article by Joel Beeke on their website in which he does state that playing golf and other such activities is a violation of the Sabbath. I am not sure that this article has any bearing on understanding R. C. Sproul's opinions on the subject, however.



I have been disappointed in Sproul after realizing Saint Andrews (his church) is independent and his commentary on the Westminster where he waters down the 2nd commandment (I do not recall exactly, but think it was along the lines that 2nd commandment is just about divine nature). With those and his discussion of the "continental" view of the Sabbath, it doesn't seem surprising that he would go golfing. 

Re: the article, I first thought Joel was saying it was wrong to miss the church service to golf, but this one sentence makes it clear his position: "Playing golf, going to see a movie, or mowing the lawn on Sunday are not the only ways to violate the Sabbath." Maybe with Robert Godfrey (who I find it hard to imagine that he takes exceptions) being the chairman of the board, we may see some of these type of articles on Ligioner.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 8, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Interestingly, Ligonier has an article by Joel Beeke on their website in which he does state that playing golf and other such activities is a violation of the Sabbath. I am not sure that this article has any bearing on understanding R. C. Sproul's opinions on the subject, however.



Interesting considering Beeke thinks it ok to disembark cruise ships and check into hotels on the Sabbath. Sending mixed signals it would seem.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 9, 2019)

@Alan D. Strange regarding your new book "The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards" do you make any reference to Dispensationalism in this? I understand that, although MacArthur affirms the traditional view of the Active Obedience of Christ, some at the Masters Seminary are denying it which has caused a lot of controversy at that Seminary.


----------

