John MacArthur Refomed or Dispensationalist

[owen]

I enjoy hearing John MacArthur and will be going to his conference in March 2oo3 I know that John will be having Eric Alexander and Albert Mohler as guest speakers who hold to the doctrines of grace and covenant theology. I know John holds and teaches the doctrines of grace but has a dispensational system which everyone says they cannot consistently walk together. It seems that John's stand on the doctrines of grace comes to a end when the RAPTURE takes place in the dispy system because that 7yr period leaves everybody during that time to decide within their own power, strength, and ability to either accept the Anti- Christ program or the gospel of the kingdom which points to the 1oooyr millenial reign. I know every dispy has their own specific details on how it is supposed to come about in that 7yr period BUT it still leaves the person "left behind" to determine his own future by his own sovereign will. MAYBE thats why they say a dispensationalist cannot hold to the doctrines of grace consistently?
Anyone out there have any thought on a person being REFORMED AND A DISPENSATIONALIST at the same time?

[Brandan Kraft]

owen, John MacArthur's teachings are hard for me to figure out. He just doesn't make sense. He's a great teacher when it comes to the doctrines of grace, but I run from his dispie teachings. He totally contradicts himself and can't see it. I suggest we pray for him that he comes out of this gross error.

[batteredsheep]

owen asks:

Anyone out there have any thought on a person being REFORMED AND A DISPENSATIONALIST at the same time?

Well, there are a few of them out there. One prominent person that comes to mind is S. Lewis Johnson, formerly of Dallas Theological Seminary, and popular conference speaker (e.g. at Reisinger's Bunyan Conference). I'm not 100% sure if he's a dispie, or just pre-mill, but he holds to a calvinistic soteriology.

I've not read a coherent and clear defence however of how one can be both. Reginald Kimbro, in his book, "The Gospel According to Dispensationalism" (Wittenburg Publication; 1995) doesn't think you can be Reformed *and* Dispensationalist.

[disciple]

Originally posted by batteredsheep
Well, there are a few of them out there. One prominent person that comes to mind is S. Lewis Johnson, formerly of Dallas Theological Seminary,...

actually, there are probably more than we know. another is daniel wallace (www.bible.org) who is also from DTS. he's a fine chap who i've talked to several times before and he wrote the book "Greek Grammar Beyond Basics." another was H.A. Ironsides.

frankly, i don't know that soteriology (your view of salvation) and ecclesiology/israelogy/eschatology necessarily go together. even in the reformed tradition there is a slough of different takes on these issues. and i don't know that macarthur would say that during the trib that it is up to man at that time to be saved (e.g., as if God stopped being sovereign). you'd have to check with him to see if this is what he believes but i'm pretty sure it's not.

also, i was a calvinistic dispie for some time and at the time i didn't see any inconsistencies. it wasn't calvinism that drove me away from dispensationalism but just the understanding/realization that i couldn't find dispensationalism in the Scripture.

anyway, sorry to ramble but i'm not sure that being dispie and calvinist are necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Brandan Kraft]

disciple, I see your point.... I too was calvinistic and dispie for a short season. I couldn't see the inconsistencies either. It wasn't until my study of CT and NCT did I really begin to see how messed up my view of Scripture really was.

[parksidemike]

I thought Chuck Swindoll was also dispensational and calvinistic. I, personally, think it is possible to have one soteriology and another eschatological view. Many great teachers have had a variety of views within each type of theology.

Nice to see you all again!

Michael

[disciple]

Originally posted by parksidemike
I thought Chuck Swindoll was also dispensational and calvinistic.

it depends on what you mean by calvinistic but i really don't think he is (although he may adhere to a modified form of 2 or 3 of the points). i do know for a fact that he is dispensational though.

Nice to see you all again!

nice to have you back!

[parksidemike]

Thanks for the reply. I've heard him preach on the radio and have solely based my "calvinistic" impressions of him based on his messages that I've heard. Certainly, not all of the points are something he may agree with ;-)

Thanks!
Michael

[Brandan Kraft]

MIKE! Glad to see you on the forum again. I'm also glad to have you back in the states... The chat the other was nice even if it was short...

Chuck Swindoll is DEFINITELY dispie! Oh man.... He's also not a Calvinist for sure....

[parksidemike]

Well, thanks for th enlightenment on that one. Guess what I heard was sort of misleading to me then? Go figure.

Yes, the chat was short but sweet ;-)

Talk to you soon!
Michael

[jitl_5234]

John MacArthur is a product of Charles Feinberg in terms of his eschatological views. People who label MacArthur or other dispensational calvinists contradicting or confused have a lot more researching to do. John MacArthur is a dispensationalist only to the degree of distinguishing between Israel and the Church. That is all.

[Yoder]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-16-9.htm


What do you guys think about this article?

[disciple]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-16-9.htm
What do you guys think about this article?

i believe we've discussed that article here previously. read this interesting challenge. as far as i know, macarthur has not responded to it.

Link deleted by Brandan - Link is now a pornography site.

[jitl_5234]

Yes I've read that article some time ago. I respect the person's effort on his part and I have always wanted to attend a Q and A session at Grace and ask MacArthur what his response would be to that.

My response to Acts 15 is that James isn't saying that the millenial reign was beginning. He was simply proving to the council that Gentiles also have access to God's kingdom. He uses the prophecy of Amos to just simply point that out. Not to announce that the kingdom has begun and the promises of Israel fulfilled in the Church. For Steve Lehrer to say that is to eisogete the text.

[disciple]

My response to Acts 15 is that James isn't saying that the millenial reign was beginning. He was simply proving to the council that Gentiles also have access to God's kingdom. He uses the prophecy of Amos to just simply point that out. Not to announce that the kingdom has begun and the promises of Israel fulfilled in the Church. For Steve Lehrer to say that is to eisogete the text.

but the fact that it agrees with the words of the prophet does not mean that he didn't link the two as promise/fulfillment. i agree that it's not unequivocal that he is citing the passage as a fulfillment, but i also don't think that it is somehow excluded either. furthermore, how would a dispensationalist handle acts 2:16 which says: "but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel"? or what does the dispensationalist understand the writer of Hebrews quotation of Jer. 31 in Heb 8 to mean? is this not promise/fulfillment or are these also just texts used for support for what they want to teach (though not directly fulfillment)? and wouldn't this be violating sensus plenor and the grammatical-historical hermeneutic (since the writers/speakers seem to then be sort of allegorizing, spiritualizing, etc.) as they are using a text outside of its original or intended meaning?

[Robert R. Higby]

Jitl 5234 states:

John MacArthur is a dispensationalist only to the degree of distinguishing between Israel and the Church. That is all.

This is definitely an over-simplification. I have heard that John now denies some of the hard-core notions of dispensationalism (such as the restoration of the OT sacrifices in the millennium). In spite of how many times I have personally heard him preach, I can't testify as to whether this claim is true or false. But he is still dispensational. He teaches separate destinies for 'Jews' (whatever they are considered to be today) and the 'church' (whatever that is defined to be in these times). One entity is proposed to have a spirit-eschatology (destiny) and the other a material eschatology.

However you slice and dice it, dispensationalism (which John still teaches) is damnable heresy. The notion of two separate peoples of God in the era of Grace is schismatic and destructive. I hate to have to say this because I like John. However, I have often prayed that God will judge his false teaching on this. If I don't pray that God will pour out his wrath on false teaching, I hate those who engage in it--I don't love them at all.

[jitl_5234]

Jitl 5234 states:

John MacArthur is a dispensationalist only to the degree of distinguishing between Israel and the Church. That is all.

This is definitely an over-simplification. I have heard that John now denies some of the hard-core notions of dispensationalism (such as the restoration of the OT sacrifices in the millennium). In spite of how many times I have personally heard him preach, I can't testify as to whether this claim is true or false. But he is still dispensational. He teaches separate destinies for 'Jews' (whatever they are considered to be today) and the 'church' (whatever that is defined to be in these times). One entity is proposed to have a spirit-eschatology (destiny) and the other a material eschatology.

However you slice and dice it, dispensationalism (which John still teaches) is damnable heresy. The notion of two separate peoples of God in the era of Grace is schismatic and destructive. I hate to have to say this because I like John. However, I have often prayed that God will judge his false teaching on this. If I don't pray that God will pour out his wrath on false teaching, I hate those who engage in it--I don't love them at all.

Such bold words you say and which you need to rethink about what damnable heresy is. Who are you to say that a correct understanding of eschatology is damnable heresy? I'm not saying certain views of eschatology can be dangerous, but we are saved through the gospel. NOT through eschatology.

As far as I know, you're wrong in stating that dispensationalism teaches that there are 2 separate peoples of God. It teaches that God is not done with Israel. Romans 9 itself states, "Not all of Israel is Israel." Paul is including the Gentiles within the kingdom of God.

[Jason777]

Just wondering if anyone has ever read MacArthur's book, The God Who Loves? It is probably one of my favorite works from a Reformed theological position; I find MacArthur's style of writing to be warm, Biblical and straightforward.

[Robert R. Higby]

jitl 5234 states:

Such bold words you say and which you need to rethink about what damnable heresy is.

Calling this teaching on eschatology damnable does not affirm that any man is damned. Think about it! Those who see a cherished teaching condemned may compain that the 'condemner' is automatically putting those who teach it in hell. But they are wrong!

Heresy is schism that divides the body of Christ. Dispensationalism is a teaching that has divided Christians more than almost all others. Yet is a Johnny-come-lately system that was invented by J. N. Darby--who plagiarized most of its elements from the heretical Irvingites of the Catholic Apostolic Church (first half of the 19th century)! The Irvingites plagiarized the majority of their views from Roman Catholic Manuel Lacunza.

Who are you to say that a correct understanding of eschatology is damnable heresy?

Oh, no one! It may be a mouse, an idiot, or however you want to view it. I'm a web non-person. If what I have said is non-scriptural, cast it into hell and God will commend you. However, if it is relevant, you are accountable to God for it. However, this statement certainly makes it clear what your view of 'correct eschatology' is.

I'm not saying certain views of eschatology can be dangerous,

I am, and that's where we differ. All wrong teaching that denies scripture is dangerous and leads many souls to damnation.

but we are saved through the gospel. NOT through eschatology.

Eschatology is a dimension of soteriology and Christology, not a separate entity. If we view it as a separate entity we are missing the spirit and essence of the NT.

As far as I know, you're wrong in stating that dispensationalism teaches that there are 2 separate peoples of God.

Go back and study what the Irvingites, Darby, Scofield, and others had to say on this. There is no doubt.

It teaches that God is not done with Israel. Romans 9 itself states, "Not all of Israel is Israel." Paul is including the Gentiles within the kingdom of God.

If that was all there was to it, there would be no difference. Obviously there is a difference, so this is not all there is to it.

[Yoder]

Greeeeeeeeat,

Now if you get eschatology wrong you are going to hell. Anybody else want to add onto the gospel?

Yoder