I am glad I didn’t pay $300 to be mocked, for that is exactly what Dr. MacArthur did to us who are not premillennial. Now everyone knows that I love and respect Dr. MacArthur. A simple Fide-O search will reveal numerous references to my praises of this man and his incredible impact on the Church. But during the first session today, Dr. MacArthur preached a sermon entitled, “Sovereign Election, Israel and Eschatology.”
MacArthur began by misrepresenting the true definition of Amillenialism. For example, his first tactic in this speech was to bias his hearers against Amillenialism by equating Amillenialist with Theistic Evolutionist, claiming that they both change interpretive rules. Besides making a false comparison with this tactic, he fails to mention that a whole new hermeneutic was formulated in order for premillenialism to come into existence in recent church history.
Dr. MacArthur continues his tactic of re-defining Amillenialism as he claimed that Amil asserts that the Kingdom as prophesied in the Old Testament will not exist. Now, friends, this is just not true in any way, shape, or form. Indeed, the entirety of the Amil position is that the OT kingdom DOES exists exactly as prophesied. Dr. MacArthur literally redefined Amil by claiming that it asserts the opposite of what it actually asserts. I have to believe that he knows that this definition was false being a man of such scholarly stature. So I am puzzled by his reason for using this tactic.
Then, Dr. MacArthur claimed that Amil denies elect Israel. He said, “This is strange.” What is really strange is that he made such a false claim against Amil. But he not only made this false charge — it was the heart of his speech. The whole purpose of this sermon, as stated by Dr. MacArthur, was to try to assert that Amil denies the doctrine of sovereign election. He even added, “Every self-respecting Calvinist should be a premillenialist!” He continued with more false comparisons saying, “Amil should be left for Arminians because they believe God elects no one and preserves no one. Open Theists should be Amil… Charismatics should be Amil because they go in and out of salvation willy nilly… For those of us who get it– that God is sovereign… Amil makes no sense because they believe Israel forfeited their promises.”
At this point I realize that what I just heard was the grandest stawman burning I had ever witnessed!
Dr. MacArthur continued by delving into the hermeneutic arguments promoted by Dr. Robert Thomas. He used such catch phrases as the “normal hermeneutic” or the “plain meaning” hermeneutic of dispensationalist/premil as opposed to the “doesn’t mean what it says” hermeneutic of Amil. Yeah, sure that is exactly what I believe — the Bible doesn’t mean what it says… Come on. Talk about biasing the argument. Talk about labeling your opponent in the worse possible light even though the label is completely false. I don’t interpret the Bible apart from the Bible’s interpretation of itself. The Amil position is that the kingdom was established exactly as the Apostles (and the prophet John the Baptist and Jesus himself) plainly declared with their use of the normal language.
But I don’t have time to write right now on this issue because the next part of Dr. MacArthur speech was the most outrageous thing I have ever heard from a preacher in many years. Dr. MacArthur claimed there is such a thing as “Jewish DNA.” I could not believe that he said it. I see DNA scientist researching the genetic content contained in a haploid set of chromosomes and saying, “Hey look there is a Jew chromosome or their is the chromosome that makes someone an Commanche Indian.” Really, I knew that the premil camp was hurting because of the rise of Reformed Theology, but I didn’t expect such desperate measures to be taken. Speaking of Theistic Evolutionist, there is nothing worse than a sermon filled with poor theology and poor science.
Yet, it didn’t stop here. MacArthur then admitted that John Calvin, among nearly all others of the reformed faith, would not agree with MacArthur. But then he claimed that if Calvin were here today he would be premil. He also quoted Jonathan Edwards and then asked sarcastically, “Where did he get that?!” And towards the end of the speech, Dr. MacArthur said that Augustine is responsible for the Dark Ages and Amil theology is responsible for the errors of Roman Catholicism.
The middle of the speech contained four questions: Is the OT amil, were the Jews in Jesus’ day amil, was Jesus amil, and were the apostles amil? Beginning with these question Dr. MacArthur primarily referred to Amil as “Replacement Theology.” He read Scriptures and defended his dispensational/premil interpretation of them. Dr. MacArthur’s diatribe at this point became very inconsistent since he actually began to deal with Scriptures.
His exegesis was noticeably biased and at times completely off base. For example, he said that Jesus’ answer to the apostles question in Acts 1:6 was “NO.” Excuse me, but that is not in the text. I think Dr. Thomas might call this “fictional eisogesis.” Or upon reading Acts 15:14-16 MacArthur said that that is proof that God will build a tabernacle after the age of the Gentiles, but the context is clear that Peter was speaking of God’s current activities. In other words, Peter was declaring in those verses that the words of the prophets were being fulfilled. But then in the most incredible moment of hermenuetical inconsistency, MacArthur quoted Romans 11:26, “And so all Israel will be saved.” “What does Israel mean?” exclaimed MacArthur. “It means Israel!.” Yes, we Amillers would agree… but the real question is what does “all” mean? If MacArthur remains consistent then he has to believe that “all means all!” — that all ethnic Jews will be saved. But, of course, he doesn’t believe that, so he interprets “all” one way AND THE VERY NEXT WORD, “Israel” a completely different way! Talk about inconsistent interpretive principles!
But the clincher for me was his last illustration when he claimed that an Amiller will be unsuccessful in witnessing to Jews because Jews are wanting their land and wealth and physical blessings — and only dispy/premilers can promise them that. So, let me get this straight, if I can’t appeal to the selfish desires, the materialism of Jews then I can’t get them saved. I’ve got two problems with that: (1) I don’t view Jews as being so materialistic, (2) I thought this speech was to protect the doctrine of sovereign election?
As an amillenarian I believe that the hope of salvation for Jews and Gentiles is Jesus alone! He is the sum and substance of the promises! Who needs land? We have Him! Nation? We are a called nation, a holy priesthood — and most importantly we are the children of God! And if you are Christ’s, said Paul, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs to promise! That is plain enough for me!
In the end, I came away from this speech with one overall thought. I figured the most competent man, a man that has my utmost respect, gave it his all to try to convince me of premillenialism. And not only did he not make one valid theological or biblical point, his tactics revealed to me that premillenialism is in dire straights. I am confident that I will never hear a more passionate and comprehensive defense of premillenialism — and I am even more convinced of amillenialism! I continue to love and respect Dr. MacArthur, and I hope to continue to have the blessings of learning from him. This was just one of the strangest ways to learn.
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.
If what you are saying is true I believe Dr. Mac has got cheese molding somewhere. He is more intelligent than that. This is hard to fathom.
Wow……
I do not understand why these straw-man type arguments continue to be used by Christians. It is unfitting of the man of God to misrepresent any opposing viewpoint, regardless of how much you may disagree with it. How can the man of God who is hearing these things rightly discern what is being taught if nothing is fairly proclaimed? It is our duty as Christians to accurately explain the opposing views, and then biblically show how they are inconsistent and in error.
I pray that the men who were at this conference had enough knowledge concerning amillenialism to see through the charades.
I will be praying for all of you as the conference continues. Take care Pastors!
-Corey
I just wanted to clarify that I was not at this conference, and therefore can not attest to whether my comments above can be said of Dr. MacArthur. Rather they are general statements regarding the character of many polemic arguments going on in evangelicalism today.
Jason,
I share your a-mill position…AND your bewilderment at what was presented today – not only what was put forth in support of pre-mill – but what was presented against the a-mill position.
I just don’t understand why MacArthur felt the need to use the Shepherd’s conference to do what he did today.
I agree with you…if this is the best they can do…pre-mill is in dire straights.
Thanks for your post on this.
Brian
I just don’t know how one can hold to amillennialism and still claim to take the Bible literally. I may not agree with everything MacArthur stated, but I do know that his points that the Old Testament prophets, the Jews, Christ, and the apostles, all held to pre-millennialism. Hopefully you will continue to be open to the teachings of Scripture.
ow…
I am flabbergasted. I am saddened to hear that MarArthur preached all this. And there were more than likely amils in the crowd! Well, I am praying that he will be open to a bortherly critique and that, even if he doesn’t embrace amil, that he would have an honest disafreement without all the false accusations. He embraced limited atonement after preaching Amyraldianism….he can become amil
jason-
thanks for such a great response…I love and respect deeply Dr. MacArthur and his ministry but I was shocked after reading Challies blog on the event…I respectfully disagree with him, maybe you could re-post or link to that article you did some time back on A-millenialism.
I am hoping that this will be a great opportunity for Jason to stand in line tomorrow morning during the q and a, and ask John one burning question you think he should address.
Are you up to it bro.?
Fred
Jason,
Did you actually listen to the message? You didn’t pay to attend the conference but you went in anyway and took someone’s seat
But seriously, I think you have over-reacted here. The amillennial eschatology does not find support in a normative reading of the text, even Hoekema (and a few others) admitted that. The current center of theistic evolution is a reformed school in Grand Rapids. It is not a bad analogy. Most Theistic evolutionists, framework hypothesis adherents, etc. do come from Reformed and Covenantal theological backgrounds and it is their willingness to abandon grammatical-historical hermeneutics that gets them there (along with a bad view of general revelation).
Perhaps it’s time to reexamine this somewhat underdiscussed topic. Am grateful MacArthur has sparked some conversation. – Cindy
Just for the record, I haven’t taken anyone’s seat. I have sat outside during the preaching and listened on the outside speakers (which are great BTW) and have left campus during the seminars. I did sit in the gym when I first arrived and listened to this message, but there were many empty seats. They told me that I may be able to register tomorrow. In the mean time I am rejoicing that most of the 15 men that came with me were able to register and learn from the wonderful men here at Grace.
Jason,
Good to hear that you are not a practical antinomian!
Rich B.
I have defined my Amillenialism and Covenant Theology in a few pithy posts. I do not feel the need tonight to debate the fine points of theology in this comment section. MacArthur gave his passionate defense with conviction and sarcasm to boot. I gave my opinion in the most gently nature as possible — especially since the sermon was aimed at my theology and concluded that I (and the reformers) were responsible for all that is bad in the church today. So if you would like to read my theological defense go here.
it’s good to know that even our human heroes can fail us, mock us, or misinterpret what we believe. It’s also telling how much time we as reformed brothers spend debating each other and others over things that are penultimate.
I hope all of us would redouble our efforts to mortify pride in our hearts and spread the gospel.
Be Blessed Jason
Psalm 63-the answer to alot of foolishness
I’ll be happy when we can all move past Left Behind and all the other variants of that particularly shady branch of theology. When eschatology becomes more important than discipling the brethren, we got problems. Oops, I guess we already have problems.
Jason said:
. . . And not only did he not make one valid theological or biblical point, his tactics revealed to me that premillenialism is in dire straights. I am confident that I will never hear a more passionate and comprehensive defense of premillenialism — and I am even more convinced of amillenialism!. . .
Then you haven’t read much in the area of pre-millenialism if this is your conclusion, Jason–which I’m sure you have read in this area–which would make this statement a caricature. You know, and I know that there are stronger, biblical theological points for premil–beyond, and different, than the apparent attempt by MacArthur today.
Also, I find that the most consistent thing a Calvinist can be is an Covenant/Amiller–given the hermeneutical framework that the TULIP, Christ’s active obedience, and the Law/Gospel realities flow from–which MacArthur inconsistently affirms as an ardent dispensational premillenialist.
Btw, I’m an Progressive Dispensationalist (premiller).
Pastor Steve—I just don’t know how one can hold to amillennialism and still claim to take the Bible literally
All in the word claim, Steve. Infinite human capacity for rationalization.
I’m not an amilleniest (as far as I know) but I agree with your analysis of MacArthur’s “attack”. On the other hand, I am not surprised by it. It is the same tact often used by those attacking Charismatics, Emergents, Seeker-Sensitives, etc.. He is notorious for doing the same to them and frankly, I think Fide-O has done some of the same.
As with the Amillenial point, I’m not arguing for or against, just noting that “less than excellent” argumentation has been used.
And I write this acknowledging I may trigger an argument. That is not my intent. Overall, I enjoy and learn from this blog.
Just proposing some introspection is always healthy.
That’s unbelieveable.
BTW, Maybe you should take Piper’s seat.
I can’t believe this.
What if I counter with, If Darby were alive today he’d be a post-mil theonomist.
Ha! Now you know how charismatics feel. Hussah for misrepresentation!
Jason,
I told my wife last night that I would normally expect the type of comments that came from MacArthur to come more from someone like Jack Van Impe regarding A-mill. I’ve heard him say it is the worst heresy ever to invade the church.
Sadly, it sounds like Mac wasn’t too far off of that statement from Impe.
Our eschatological position on the millenium is not the basis for real Christian fellowship and I am glad that it is not. I used to get upset when I was much younger and immature but all of that changed with age and learing to be thoughtful of others.
I am sure that when John MacArthur grows a little more, he will see it the same way.
Nickie
Oh brother.
I think we need a transcript or something before we engage this further.
I don’t know about there being such a thing as “Jewish DNA”, but theoretically you can trace the Levitical priests through their DNA. Since all of the Levitical priests are descended from one man, Aaron, and since you had to be the son of a priest to be a priest, every priest should have the same Y chromosome.
I think a wise thing to do before people continue to debate this, is if they actually hear the message first. Go ahead and really listen to the audio (which is preferrable to reading a transcript).
I don’t think MacArthur is approaching this as so much attacking the integrity of those who hold to an a-mill position. I think he is dealing with the hermeneutic inconsistencies that he sees them display. Obviously people on both sides would say that interpret the Bible literally, but MacArthur has a different definition of what literal is.
One of the hermeneutical errors underlining MacArthur’s comments is the presumption that “literalism” was the hermeneutic of choice for the canonical authors and audiences.
MacArthur presumes what the amil position doesn’t: that the intent of the original authors (not to mention The DIVINE AUTHOR) was “literal when possible”.
In reference to the connection between Calvinistic belief in Sovereign Grace and (MacArthur’s version of) Premillennialism…Well, I was led to accept the doctrines of sovereign grace after first being exposed to postmillennialism. It seems to be that of God is completely victorious in salvation, He will be completely victorious in history as well.
And as for “literalism”…I can’t accept anybody’s claim to be a literalist if they can’t interpret “this generation” and “these events which must shortly take place”, etc, as meaning “this generation” and “these events which must shortly take place.”
And the idea the Scripture interprets Scripture just seems more, well, scriptural, than our ideas of literalism.
This is hard to believe out of MacArthur. I’m reformed, baptistic, and premill. Yet I can’t believe he said this about others who are real believers with some sincere theological differences. I wonder if he is seeing his twilight. For a time now, I have questioned just why he has around him some of the people he does.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
I have a comment on this part of the post:
So, let me get this straight, if I can’t appeal to the selfish desires, the materialism of Jews then I can’t get them saved. I’ve got two problems with that: (1) I don’t view Jews as being so materialistic; (2) I thought this speech was to protect the doctrine of sovereign election?
First, why are you characterizing the promises made BY GOD to Abraham as “materialistic” and “selfish desires”? Is this how you view those aspects of covenant? No wonder then you do not believe that God will (literally not spiritually) fulfill them. You’ve decided that if God meant exactly what he said, then He would be catering to sin. You’re assuming your own view in order to criticize MacArthur’s suggestion that your view hinders Jewish evangelism.
If a Jew seeks the literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant because he believes that God keeps his promises, ALL of them… then how is that selfish and materialistic?
How can you NOT understand how your denial of the literal fulfillment of those promises will hinder evangelism?? It’s straightforward! THEY believe in a literal fulfillment. You believe it’s literal sometimes, allegory other times (usually allegory if it’s a blessing for Jews). You drive a wedge between yourself and any Jew who believes that God’s promise to Abraham will be literally fulfilled. See, that’s not so confusing, is it?
You may disagree with Macarthur’s claim that you misinterpret the covenant promises. That’s fine. But IF the premil dispy view is true and shares common ground with Jewish interpretation, then obviously your amil view interferes with evangelism.
Hi Jason,
I’m not getting into the amill vs. premill with this – haven’t got time. I am readinf with interest though. I do know about DNA professionally and might be of some help on that.
“Jewish DNA” would not be correct as a broad term if it meant a completely separate DNA. But it is well known in Genetics circles that the DNA of Jews is very conserved. By conserved I mean that it has shown little variation. Jewish bone marrow donors are sought after because the marrow is easier to match between Jews – the genetic blueprint is very conserved – so the bone marrow matches around the world.
The very conserved DNA also means that genetic defects get passed on – so certain diseases with a genetic cause are more prevalent within Jewish populations than elsewhere.
In particular, the mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on to all offspring maternally, is extremely conserved. So in a way, it is not incorrect to refer to Jewish DNA – because the DNA of Jews is so conserved and thus identifiable.
Having said that – I cannnot fathom what that has to do with eschatology, or why it would be used to support a particular position – be it premill or amill. Jewish genetic conservation (that’s a better term than Jewish DNA) is a biological phenomenon, and is a result of a group of people mainly marrying among themselves and passing on their unique genes to their children. Consequently the DNA is passed on within the group, i.e. Jews, with little variation. The genetic recombination that occurs with each new life is drawn from the same pool of genes.
I hope that helps clarify. I think taking exception to the “Jewish DNA” term doesn’t help your argument. I haven’t heard MacArthur’s talk, but from the summaries I’ve read I can’t see how referring to “Jewish DNA” would help his argument either.
There are other populations which also have very conserved DNA. Eskimos are one example. There are some people in Finland who are another.
Something is wrong when a church gathers men to grow in their roles and shepherds and they get hit with a message like this. I’m not against dicussing and developing theology, but this was obviously not the time or place.
A few years back Jon Courson held a pastor training school in Carmen Serdan, Mexico. There was time for theology and Bible study, but a bulk of their time was spent caring for 20 or so handicapped Mexicans. They fed them, changed their daipers, cleaned, etc. I would sooner send a young intern into that environment that waste money to hear a odd message about how a real calvinist is pre-mil.
Someone has lost the plot.
With all due respect and appreciation for the scientific data, the DNA argument is in my opinion a glaring example of how “wacky” (as MacArthur used the term) dispensationalism has gotten over its brief history.
They are always trying to find a red heifer or a vial of Solomon’s oil or the Ark of the Covenant. When everyone else in orthodoxy pointed out to them that a necessary restoration of the Tribes of Israel is not only theologically inconsistent with the fact that Christ has fulfilled the typological reasons that the tribes ever existed but also such a restoration is biologically impossible, they now claim that it will be possible with DNA.
No scientist has ever claimed to have a DNA sample from Abraham’s sons, nor has any scientist been able to tell by DNA if an indian is Navajos or Comanche or if a Jew is of the tribe of Judah or Benjamin. But, hey, I realize this kind of stuff is necessitated by Dispensationalism. I am thankful that God delivered me from it!
I’m afraid I don’t see the supposed virtue of agreeing with the “Jewish interpretation.” After all, don’t Orthodox Jews say that Jesus did NOT fulill the Messianic prophecies? Weren’t 1st century leader in Israel expecting a physical, earthly king to overthrow the Roman empire?
Also, since Paul says in Romans 11 that we Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree of Israel, then either:
1) we Gentiles believers will ALSO be ruling alongside the Jews in a literal Israel in the Millennium, or
2) the OT prophecies were fulfilled spiritually in Jesus and his Church (which is both Jews AND Gentiles – “expansion theology”, not “replacement theology”).
What I find most disturbing is an argument for a future tabernacle…Which seems to go against both Revelation and Hebrews and not only that but seems to minimize Jesus. Why do I want a Tabernacle, I have Jesus, he dwells in me and the church..why go backward?
It’s great to have found this site. I was raised at Grace and i even went to school there. I married a Messianic Jew 5 years ago; the godliest, most christian man i have ever met. I left Grace and followed my husband to his congregation. A lover of all things jewish, i have enjoyed the acceptance and love of my in-laws and political family who mostly live in Israel. AS OF A WEEK AGO I AM OF THE AMMILLENIALIST PERSUASION. I’m trying to get info from the guys at Fide-o.
On 3/9/07 CATEZ posted, “I cannnot fathom what that has to do with eschatology, or why it would be used to support a particular position – be it premill or amill.”
PERHAPS THE FOLLOWING MAY HELP. Please,BEAR WITH ME:
There is a group of muslim Philippino and other muslim Indonesian people who claim to be descendants of the prophet Mohammed. They wish to return to the land of Arabia and have Mecca as their capital. Of coarse this is nonsense, but when white ashkenazi jewish people who converted to Judaism in the 7th century claim to be descendants of Abraham, no one even blinks. 80-90% of world jewry is of ashkenazi (white)origin, the remainder is sephardic (darker, more arab looking). It is apparent that MacArthur has been exposed to this truth (whether or not he regards it as true, i do not know, but it is a historic fact). It is obvious he realizes more people are finding this out. The implication is the following: WITHOUT DISPENSATIONALISM THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL. MacArthur wrote a book titled “Why Government can’t Save You”. I find it very interesting that the church has made us Americans quite apolitical except when it comes to supporting Israel.
One last comment. Why are there theological protestors outside of Grace Church? That the church is Israel is known to us only by the Spirit and those of us who are amillenialists have no desire to bully others into seeing things how we do. Who then are those protestors? I don’t know, but i’ll say who benefits from this. MacArthur benefits. Now all the sheeple at Grace know not to even look in the direction of those “cooks who believe that way”.
Our God is sovereign and His purposes will never be thwarted.