Pre Mil. Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist
I love Macarthur as much as anyone, but in this area he is a dispensationalist through and through.
I am premil after having been amil for a good many years.
It's been a while since I listened to MacArthur's message. I may have forgotten it, but I don't remember if he specifically stated that consistent Calvinists should be
dispensationalists or pretrib, although the latter of course are his views.
His essential point is not new and was basically made by certain Reformed premils in the 19th Century. I'm thinking particularly of Hortaius Bonar's criticism of Patrick Fairbairn's interpretation of OT prophecy, among other things. MacArthur made reference to Bonar in one of the messages (he gave 3 more messages on the subject at Grace Church following the Shepherd's Conference message and I think the Bonar reference was in one of those) and noted that he has always identified more with certain Scottish Presbyterians (a good many of whom were premil by the 19th Century) as opposed to the Continental Reformed, who have typically been as hostile to any form of premillennialism as Lutherans have been.
As I understand it, MacArthur's basic point relates to unconditional election, with the argument being that if what he sees as the unconditional promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants can be annulled then so can New Covenant promises.
The idea that there will be a restoration of national Israel (both spiritually and to the land) doesn't necessitate pretribulationism or dispensationalism. (It may not even necessitate premillennialism at all. I think some postmils have believed that or something similar, although it's rarer to come across postmils who believe anything like that today. I think Erroll Hulse may be a contemporary example of a postmil who believes something along those lines.) A lot of older covenant premils like Spurgeon, Bonar and Ryle believed that.
The first time I read some of J.C. Ryle's writings on prophecy even though I knew that he wasn't dispensational I thought he came across like a dispensationalist with his emphasis on restoration/regathering as well as a future conversion of Israel, but that was largely due to my ignorance of the older premillennialism and my assumption that any talk of a restoration of national Israel, particularly as a national/political entity, was a dispensational distinctive. Here are a couple of excerpts from a couple of Spurgeon sermons that I think may surprise some Spurgeon admirers (as well as those who are only familiar with the Ladd variety of "historic premil") in his ardent belief of a future restoration/regathering as well as a future conversion of the Jews:
First, THERE IS TO BE A POLITICAL RESTORATION OF THE JEWS. Israel is now blotted out from the map of nations. Her sons are scattered far and wide. Her daughters mourn beside all the rivers of the earth. Her sacred song is hushed—no king reigns in Jerusalem! She brings forth no governors among her tribes. But she is to be restored! She is to be restored “as from the dead.” When her own sons have given up all hope of her, then is God to appear for her. She is to be reorganized—her scattered bones are to be brought together. There will be a native government again. There will again be the form of a political body.
A State shall be incorporated and a king shall reign. Israel has now become alienated from her own land. Her sons, though they can never forget the sacred dust of Palestine, yet die at a hopeless distance from her consecrated shores. But it shall not be so forever, for her sons shall
again rejoice in her—her land shall be called Beulah—for as a young man marries a virgin so shall her sons marry her. “I will place you in your own land,” is God’s promise to them. They shall again walk upon her mountains, shall once more sit under her vines and rejoice under her fig trees! And they are also to be reunited. There shall not be two, nor ten, nor twelve, but one—one Israel praising one God—serving one king and that one King the Son of David, the descended Messiah! They are to have a national prosperity which shall make them famous. No, so glorious shall they be that Egypt and Tyre and Greece and Rome shall all forget their glory in the greater splendor of the throne of David! The day shall yet come when all the high hills shall leap with envy because this is the hill which God has chosen! The time shall come when Zion’s shrine shall again be visited by the constant feet of the pilgrim—when her valleys shall echo with songs and her hilltops shall drop with wine and oil. If there is meaning in words this must be the meaning of this chapter! [Ezekiel 37] I wish never to learn the art of tearing God’s meaning out of His own Words. If there is anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage—a meaning not to be spirited or spiritualized away—it must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israel are to be restored to their own land and that a king is to rule over them. “Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen where they are gone and will gather them on every side and bring them into their own land: and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king to them all. And they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.”
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs582.pdf
The hour is approaching when the tribes shall go up to their own country, when Judea, so long a howling wilderness, shall once more blossom like the rose. Then, if the Temple, itself, is not restored, yet on Zion’s hill shall be raised some Christian building where the chants of solemn praise shall be heard, as of old the Psalms of David were sung
in the Tabernacle. Not long shall it be before they shall come—shall come from distant lands, wherever they rest or roam. And she who has been the off-scouring of all things, whose name has been a proverb and a byword, shall become the glory of all lands! Dejected Zion shall raise her head, shaking herself from dust, darkness and the dead. Then shall the Lord feed His people and make them and the places round about His hill a blessing. I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews. We do not think enough of it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible, it is this. I imagine that you cannot read the Bible without seeing clearly that there is to be an actual restoration of the children of Israel. “There they shall go up. They shall come with weeping unto Zion and with supplications unto Jerusalem.” May that happy day soon come! For when the Jews are restored, then the fullness of the Gentiles shall be gathered in. And as soon as they return, then Jesus will come upon Mount Zion to reign with His ancients gloriously and the halcyon days of the Millennium shall then dawn. We shall then know every man to be a brother and a friend. Christ shall rule with universal sway!
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols1-3/chs28.pdf
I don't see how the above (and many more similar quotes could be provided from Spurgeon and other covenantal premils of his era) is anything other than futuristic premillennialism, which does not necessarily equate with dispensationalism. All dispensationalists are futurists but not all futurists are dispensationalists. (Errol Hulse (and perhaps Iain Murray as well If I recall correctly?) misread the above and some other quotes on the restoration and conversion of the Jews to mean that Spurgeon was a Puritan postmil as he is, but elsewhere Spurgeon makes his premillennialism plain.)
Historic premillennialism today is largely defined by Ladd's work and as Dennis notes above, hardly differs from amillennialism in many respects. This is particularly so with regard to the interpretation of OT prophecy. In that sense it's really not so "historic" at all.
... (Actually Amil)...
