Dr. Waldron responds to Dr. MacArthur’s “leaky” dispensationalism.
Here is a snippet of Dr. Waldron’s response: “Dr. MacArthur is a ‘leaky Dispensationalist.’ Indeed he is, because he allows the Church to leak into the gospels and especially the Sermon the Mount and refuses to draw strict demarcations between those parts of the Bible intended for the Jews and those intended for the church. I praise God for these leaks. They make him a much safer guide in the Scriptures. They do not, however, make for a very consistent Dispensationalist.” Click here to read Dr. Waldron’s entire post.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Sigh, another round of burning down strawmen (see Waldron’s ‘response’).
He tries to make several points at the end.
1. First, the question is not simply about a blessed future for ethnic Israel.
- I am glad he gets this so far.
2a. Second, the question is not about literal interpretation.
- It IS about literal interpretation. By literal though we mean normal or plain. In other words, words actually mean something and don’t magically mean something else to fit CT’s system.
2b. The church is literally Jewish because it consists of those in union with a Jewish Messiah who is the heir of all the promises made to Israel.
- The church is literally NOT jewish. The church is spoken of as being NEITHER jew nor gentile. The church is spoken of as a NEW MAN as opposed to being jew or gentile. Appealing to jewish roots doesn’t make it jewish. Sigh.
3. Third, the question is what you mean by literal interpretation.
- Going back to the 2nd point, it is about a literal interpretation. The bait and switch tactics employed by CTers and amillers is weak. God says ‘a’ but he was just joking and really means ‘b’. Uh huh.
- Waldron goes on to say:
“MacArthur seems to assume a literal view in the sense of always literal or literal wherever possible. The fact is that such a hermeneutic is indefensible. With God anything is possible!”
Wow. Such a hermeneutic is indefensible. Okay, show me just one place where a normal or plain interpretation is indefensible, just one. To then say that with God anything is possible is just sick. I wonder what else one could apply that to. Arminians could work that use of that verse into their theology somehow. I expect better.
- Waldron then goes on to say:
“Furthermore, there are clearly figurative passages in the Bible (parts of the Psalms, Daniel, and Revelation) which to interpret literally is to misinterpret them.”
Which if he had put a little bit of study into what dispensationalists actually mean by literal, he never would have tried to make this point.
- Waldron says:
“The proper method of interpretation is one in which we determine the literary genre of a passage and interpret in accord with its literary genre.”
This is exactly what dispensationalists mean by literal interpretation. It allows for figures of speech, metaphors, etc.
- Waldron finally says:
“The fact is that every reference to the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 in the New Testament understands it as referring to the church.”
I wonder if he thinks MacArthur denies this point? Perhaps he should study a bit more.
Irenaeus, are you actually accusing Dr. Waldron of not studying enough to know what dispensationalist believe?
I love Sam Waldron and I wish that Irenaeus would use the same patient, kind, and respectful tone (that means without condescension & dripping sarcasm) to evaluate Sam’s position as Sam did for Macarthur’s.
After filtering out the inflammatory words (e.g. “bait and switch”) and the excessive sarcasm…. I think Irenaeus is accusing Mr. Waldron of not studying enough to know what Macarthur believes, especially regarding Jeremiah 31. Waldron dropped the ball on that point.
Also Waldron does not seem to “get” the literal hermeneutic. It is frustrating how commonly amills misrepresent and disparage the very same hermeneutic they use to arrive at their soteriology.
http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2006/11/twenty-five-stupid-reasons-for-dissing.html
See especially #12, #13, and #23
I like the way Waldron approaches his reader’s question even though I disagree with most of his article. I am “leaky” myself because the “rigid” dispensational system isn’t 100% biblical. And it simply isn’t necessary to relegate the Sermon on the Mount to Israel only to be consistent. I throw that stuff in the junk heap the same way covenantal Baptists toss paedobaptism out of their system.
Scott, it is obvious that is the case. That is why I needed to point out his errors.
How about you showing me where I am wrong in what I said.
Regarding the bait and switch comment, it wasn’t meant to be inflammatory. It is what it is though. CTers and amills should not hide from doing that since that is what they do.
The literal interpretation of Scripture debate is one that I find fascinating. Why? Because when I was a dispensationist I was student and practitioner of literal hermeneutics — which ultimately led me to Covenant Theology — which ultimately led me to realize that the whole literal hermeneutic debate is a non-sequitur in many ways. For example, I bet you would be hard pressed to find any dispensational who would force their “literal” hermeneutics upon Psalm 22 or Mark 15:34. I also find it amusing that the “literal hermeneutics” profs are frantically trying to formulate hermeneutical rules that explain away the fact that the apostles did not use their “literal hermeneutics” to interpret the O.T. In fact, one of the biggest problems with the Pharisees is that they were so literal they completely missed the point often times. The bottom line is, God’s points are always spiritual. Paul relentlessly proves that to the Jews who had dug in to their own version of “literal” interpretations. So I thank God that Dr. MacArthur, whom I dearly respect, is “leaky.” Thank God for his honesty, that dispensationalism just does not consistently work as a structure of interpretation.
And BTW, such has no parallel to the paedo- vs. credo-baptism debate. Why? Because MacArthur’s dispensationalism is less than true dispensationalism. But a Reformed credo-baptist is no less of a Covenant Theologian than a paedo-baptist. So it is one of those “apples vs. oranges” differences.
I don’t even agree with everything Dr. Waldron said, and I will be gladly sitting under Dr. MacArthur’s teaching in 2 weeks although I don’t agree with his leaking dispensationalism either. My issue is not with the theology of either side it is with making the assumption that Dr. Waldron should go study the historical grammatical hermeneutic, because apparently his misunderstanding comes from shear ignorance.
My first questions was not rhetorical, but rather more of a stupefied response to a lame assumption. I think to say Dr. Waldron’s supposed errors are from ignorance is showing a supreme amount of arrogance.
Scott, that the same tired, played reasons for rejecting the ‘literal’ interpretation of scripture are STILL being employed by amills is either ignorance or antagonistic. I chose to give Waldron the benefit of the doubt. It is hard for those bound to a certain system to sometimes think outside it to understand others.
Here is Mark 15:34
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
Jason, could you enlighten me as to how a literal interpretation would not be acceptable here? Jesus did say it didn’t he?
James,
If I were antagonistic I would point out that the one who claimed that Dr. Waldron needs to study is the one who doesn’t know about the hermeneutical controversy over Ps.22 and Mark 15:34. But I am not an antagonist.
So if you want to do this: the question is “What did Jesus literally mean in Mark 15:34 when he quoted Psalm 22? Make sure you tell me what Psalm 22:1 literally means and then keep it consistent with Jesus’ quote.
(And remember: I am not trapping you. Your own arrogance asked for this. If you would like to back out now I will be merciful
Concerning literal hermeneutics, if one means by that a sensitivity to literary genre then CTers and Dispensationalists agree. Both schools realize the Bible is not all narrative, for instance. I have wondered if the disconnect between the two schools of thought comes, at least in part, as a result of the latter adhering exclusively to a grammatical-historical hermeneutic and the former including a redemptive-historical hermeneutic. In other words, IMO, CTers utilize principles of interpretation derived from the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. Or, as the 2nd London Confession 1:10 says, “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself…” So, for instance, a redemptive-historical hermeneutic allows Mt. 2:15 to have the final word on the interpretation and application of Hos. 11:1. Texts, such as this one, are functioning on at least these two levels – the grammatical-historical and the redemptive-historical. Texts must be interpreted on both levels in order to understand their meanings. Not only should texts be interpreted in their immediate grammatical and historical contexts, our interpretations must fit within all the broader contexts that texts find themselves in. This would include genre, book, testamental, and the whole-Bible context.
IMO, some Dispensationalists have used the phrase “literal hermeneutics” but not always to intend by that a sensitivity to biblical genres. Just my opinion, remember. Me thinks that “literal hermeneutics” too often describes a method of interpreting OT prophecy. But, as we all know, the NT itslef does not apply this kind of hermeneutic to the interpretation of OT prophecy (cf. Mt. 2:15 and/or the NT application of the New Covenant as prophesied in the OT, as Dr. Waldron suggested). The NT views the OT as preparatory to and the presupposition of the NT. Special revelation is organic, progressive, and not complete until the fulness of the times had come, along with its subseqeunt narration and interpretation of the redemptive acts of Christ, by the writers of the NT. Hence, any one part of Scripture belongs to the whole and must be interpreted in light of that whole. If one’s theory and application of a “literal hermeneutic” does not produce the fruit that the Bible itself does, then one must go back to the hermeneutical drawing-board. Reading the NT and wrestling with its use of the OT forced me to do that very thing.
May I suggest some of the commenters in this thread read Biblical Intepretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in light of the Early Church by David Dockery?
This is an excellent primer to the many interpretive issues in biblical studies, none of which are new.
BTW, I find it interesting that the Jews of Jesus’ day insisted on interpreting Malachi 4:5-6 ‘literally’ while Jesus did not. (Matt. 11:13-15)
That seems someone is redefining “dispensationalism”. According to the scofield Bible what is being called “leaky dispensationalism” is historical dispensationalism.
Scott, Jeremy, and Richard,
Very good points. This whole ongoing debate about “literal” hermeneutics is definitely worth having. Why? Because ultimately is is not about which theological camp one is in, but what does the Bible say. And upon this subject I believe that Richard has really hit the proverbial nail on the head with this conclusion:
I have wondered if the disconnect between the two schools of thought comes, at least in part, as a result of the latter adhering exclusively to a grammatical- historical hermeneutic and the former including a redemptive- historical hermeneutic. In other words, IMO, CTers utilize principles of interpretation derived from the Bible’s own interpretation of itself.
Richard, I completely agree. Which is why this conversation can be so frustrating at times for CT’ers because the other side acts as if we do not believe in literal- grammatical- historical hermeneutics. WE DO, and MORE – as is revealed by the New Testament’s own interpretive principles.
And just to mention one other twist as we critique dispensationalism’s interpretive principles, may I remind us that most of their principles are ignored when they come to the many New Testament passages like Matthew 24, Romans 11, Peter’s sermons in Acts 2, Galatians 3 & 4, Revelation 1 & 22, just to name a few.
On so many passages we all can agree. But when a context demands a redemptive-historical interpretation the Dispys balk. Frankly I got tired of being “leaky” and finally knocked down the “wall” that had kept me from becoming consistent in my hermeneutics. That “wall” was erected because of poor training in seminary, fear of becoming a paedo-baptist, and a refusal to believe that I had preached so many messed-up sermons about the end-times
But once I became fully reformed in my theology and consistent in my hermeneutics, I wished I had been here 20 years ago. It reminded me of how blessed it was when I painfully but with complete resolve jettisoned all of the Arminianism that I had picked up over my early years under Southern Baptist teaching. Bottom line: it is always worth the pain and humility to become more biblical and sound in one’s theology. I’m sure some men in Acts 15 would agree with me
Jason,
You said, “If I were antagonistic I would point out that the one who claimed that Dr. Waldron needs to study is the one who doesn’t know about the hermeneutical controversy over Ps.22 and Mark 15:34. But I am not an antagonist.”
First, I was actually talking to Scott. Why amills have to erect strawment to burn I will never know. I thought they were confident in their system. So I suppose a third option is availabe, insecure. Still, I thought ignorant was nicer. Remember, saying someone is ignorant just means they don’t know something. It isn’t the same as saying they are stupid. We are both ignorant over a great many things.
Second, I asked you to point out why a literal interpretation of those verses would be a problem. You didn’t do that. Instead, you chose to insult my intelligence. Feel free to blog on it sometime and enlighten all of us. I have my belief about those texts. I was just hoping you could have put up.
Third, (I mean this sincerely) I note the conversational terrorism. I won’t call you an antagonist anymore on this issue. You have the other two options to chose from.
You then say this, “(And remember: I am not trapping you. Your own arrogance asked for this. If you would like to back out now I will be merciful.”
How very generous and humble of you Jason. If I do not back down and bow to your superior thinking skills, you will mercilessly pummel me because you are so much smarter. Can you honestly imagine your kid saying the above to another kid? Would you feel as proud as when you hit the enter key on that one? Check yourself.
Finally, I respect Dr. Waldron. I think his understanding of DT is weak though. I pointed out where I disagreed with him and where I think he didn’t fully understand something. Remember, ignorance isn’t the same as stupidity. I didn’t get the memo which listed the untouchables. Scott, please forward that to me asap.
I said…
“…it simply isn’t necessary to relegate the Sermon on the Mount to Israel only to be consistent. I throw that stuff in the junk heap the same way covenantal Baptists toss paedobaptism out of their system.”
Jason E. Robertson said…
“And BTW, such has no parallel to the paedo- vs. credo-baptism debate. Why? Because MacArthur’s dispensationalism is less than true dispensationalism. But a Reformed credo-baptist is no less of a Covenant Theologian than a paedo-baptist. So it is one of those “apples vs. oranges” differences.”
I don’t mean to be contentious, but can you substantiate your claim? I don’t question that one can be a consistent CT credobaptist, but please explain why “true dispensationalism” must necessarily render the Sermon on the Mount irrelevant to the Church.
To clarify what I meant: traditional dispensationalism embraces truth (in my view) and also error (example I gave). Traditional CT (in your view) embraces truth and also error (e.g. paedobaptism). If you disagree with that parallel, fine, but you have not demonstrated why the “leak” is an essential component of the system.
(evil thought: it would be amusing albeit unfair and mean-spirited to say you are a “leaky covenant theologian”)
I am not trying to be slippery and postmodern. Words have meanings. But consider that I have already been excluded from being truly “reformed”. Are you now saying I cannot truly be truly “dispensational” either? My beliefs draw heavily from both traditions. I think that making these distinctions is occasionally helpful and mostly a distraction.
What would really help is an explanation why all forms of monergistic dispensationalism must necessarily be inconsistent. I would like to see interaction with the published works of the TMS faculty/alums and their sphere of influence. These people have read Augustine, Owen, and Calvin. They understand the amill view and are not persuaded. They have published their objections. Good men of monergistic faith have rejected amillennialsm long before there was a TMS. I recently picked up J.B. Smith’s commentary on Revelation. When will we see some serious interaction? The “CT awareness” campaign has succeeded. We have read your books. Responses have been provided, but the surface-level CT awareness campaign continues.
Umm… Andrew, I’m sorry. You lost me. I have no idea what campaign you are referring to or what in the world is a “leaky CT” is or what you books you haven’t read. I’m sorry, sometimes you say things that just make it impossible to respond in a manner appropriate for a blog. Sometimes I think I would rather just sit down over coffee and talk through your opinions one at a time. Let me know when you are coming through Murrieta.
“Leaky CT” was a joke. Just trying to get a laugh.
I live in Virginia, so I don’t pass through Murrieta too often…
I apologize if my post is all over the map. Maybe I will call into Gene’s broadcast sometime when you’re on the air.
However you must understand that my boss is a diehard pre-tribber and doesn’t like me making phone calls to CT radio shows while I’m at work. (again joking!)
I would consider my self more of a “Leaky covenantalist” rather than dispensationalist. There are several things I would agree down the line with CTers like the progressive nature of covenants, but disagree like Israel being the OT church, and the uniqueness of the NT body of Christ.
Fred, why adhere to any of CT? Use the bible to define your theology and embrace NCT premillenialism. That way your theology won’t leak anything.
Since the subject of the original post is MacArthur’s dispensationalism, I hope it is not too distracting to post links to TMS’ recent evaluation of NCT.
There is also much commentary on CT by the TMS faculty in these lectures. I guess it is impossible to define NCT without making reference to CT.
http://audio.tms.edu/downloads/02_06_2007%20Dennis%20Swanson%20Intro%20to
%20New%20Covenant%20Theology.mp3
http://audio.tms.edu/downloads/02_08_2007%20Bill%20Barrick%20NCT
%20and%20the%20OT%20Covenants.mp3
http://audio.tms.edu/downloads/02_13_2007%20Michael%20Vlach%20How%20Does
%20NCT%20Relate%20to%20Covenantelism.mp3
http://audio.tms.edu/downloads/
02_15_2007%20Dr.%20Larry%20Pettegrew%20The
%20New%20Covenant%20and%20NCT.mp3
http://audio.tms.edu/downloads/
02_20_2007%20Dick%20Mayhue%20NCT%20and
%20Futuristic%20Premillenialism.mp3
I posted my review of Wells/Zaspel at:
http://www.mctsowensboro.org/blog/
Rich, have you had a chance to interact with John Reisinger’s critique of your book, In defense of the decalogue?
James,
When JGR started posting his review of my book several years ago, I read the first few posts with interest. But the review ended up being longer than my book (I think) so I lost the will-power to hang with him.
If/when we revise my book, I will definitely have to read his review. I was glad to hear that he modified his view of the identity of the Old Covenant. Greg Welty nudged him in that direction.
James,
My comment was meant more tongue-in-cheek, but if I do have a biblical theology that adheres to some aspects of CT with out imbibing the entire system, for example, the historic redemptive aspect and reading the OT in light of the NT, what is wrong with jokingly calling myself a leaky covenantalist?
Fred
Jason would you say “leaky-dispensationalism” is the same as dispensationalism taught by the scofield study bible? If so woulden’t you say that anything other than “leaky-dispensationalism” is a new form of dispensationalism? It woudlden’t be the historical dispensationalism, right?
Thomas, Google has a new spell check download that will underline in read anything typed in a web browser. You might want to check it out.