New Covenant: Future?

[Unique Name]

[Preface: extreme layman here] I'm somewhat familiar with MacArthur brand dispensationalism, but I never encountered this suggestion that the New Covenant is a future reality instead of finding fulfillment at the cross when Christ took away the sins of His people. Anyone know how this works in MacArthur's theology?

 

[arapahoepark]

[Preface: extreme layman here] I'm somewhat familiar with MacArthur brand dispensationalism, but I never encountered this suggestion that the New Covenant is a future reality instead of finding fulfillment at the cross when Christ took away the sins of His people. Anyone know how this works in MacArthur's theology?

Rather disturbing. Ultimately, I have no clue how it works in his pseudo 'reformed ' theology. I wasn't aware he was that crazy dispensational. Should be a further warning to stay away from him.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

MacArthur's view of Israel blinds him so he does not understand the one true people of God which is essential to true Calvinism. He is a Calvinist.

The issue comes down to the seed of the woman versus the seed of the serpent.

I thought Romans 9-11 was straightforward and non dispensational.
1. For starters, look at Rom 8:29 and the word 'foreknew'. I am sure we agree this is a word that emphasises sovereign election.
2. Romans 9 is the great passage on sovereign election. MacArthur would agree.
3. Romans 10 emphasises the remnant.
4. Romans 11:2 "God has not cast away the people he 'foreknew'.
5. Romans 11:5 is very clear " So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace."

We can put this together. God has elected the remnant of Israel. These are the ones he foreknew. The issue is not about National but elect Israel. There will be some of Israel that is elect 'for the sake of the fathers'. Further the Gentiles are engrafted into the Tree. But it is ONE tree, not two separate trees for Israel and the Church.

MacArthur's dispensationalism is inconsistent with his Calvinism.

Should be a further warning to stay away from him.

I understand the frustration, Trent, but I think this is a little harsh. MacArthur's Calvinism means he says many things that are helpful. It is because of his Calvinism he often shares a platform at Conferences with Reformed pastors. But yes we do need to be discriminating. I have warned reformed Baptists they should not align themselves too closely to MacArthur even if they like his Calvinism and his believer baptism. His view on baptism is not covenantal.

If you want a very helpful series critiquing dispensationism, the Reformed Forum did a series on this some years ago. https://reformedforum.org/category/series/dispensationalism/

 

[Wretched Man]

MacArthur's view of Israel blinds him so he does not understand the one true people of God which is essential to true Calvinism. He is a Calvinist.

The issue comes down to the seed of the woman versus the seed of the serpent.

I thought Romans 9-11 was straightforward and non dispensational.
1. For starters, look at Rom 8:29 and the word 'foreknew'. I am sure we agree this is a word that emphasises sovereign election.
2. Romans 9 is the great passage on sovereign election. MacArthur would agree.
3. Romans 10 emphasises the remnant.
4. Romans 11:2 "God has not cast away the people he 'foreknew'.
5. Romans 11:5 is very clear " So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace."

We can put this together. God has elected the remnant of Israel. These are the ones he foreknew. The issue is not about National but elect Israel. There will be some of Israel that is elect 'for the sake of the fathers'. Further the Gentiles are engrafted into the Tree. But it is ONE tree, not two separate trees for Israel and the Church.

MacArthur's dispensationalism is inconsistent with his Calvinism.

I understand the frustration, Trent, but I think this is a little harsh. MacArthur's Calvinism means he says many things that are helpful. It is because of his Calvinism he often shares a platform at Conferences with Reformed pastors. But yes we do need to be discriminating. I have warned reformed Baptists they should not align themselves too closely to MacArthur even if they like his Calvinism and his believer baptism. His view on baptism is not covenantal.

If you want a very helpful series critiquing dispensationism, the Reformed Forum did a series on this some years ago. https://reformedforum.org/category/series/dispensationalism/

I do cringe at John MacArthur’s dispensationalism (I’m afraid to even watch this video), but can’t disregard much of the powerful and bold teachings he’s provided over the decades.