This morning John MacArthur opened the 2007 Shepherd’s Conference with a loud blast that will no doubt be heard around the Reformed world in the coming weeks. His message in General Session 1 was entitled “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is Premillennial”.
I am not going to try to quote him here, because frankly I did not take notes, I just sat there and listened. MacArthur pulled no punches in his messages saying things like Jesus, Peter, the writer of Hebrews, and James were all premillenial. He also said that it is too late for Calvin but it is not too late for you [to join the Reformed Premillennial movement]! I just want to note that he neither proposed nor answered the types of objections that are oftentimes levied against premillennialists (like some I have heard lately). Instead, MacArthur systematically unpacked the biblical theology that leads one to an unabashed Calvinistic eschatology.
He made an interesting connection between Genesis and Revelation. Basically he said that when people spiritualize or allegorize the first three chapters of Genesis we call them Liberals, but when they do the same with the prophetic Scriptures we call them amillennialists. MacArthur insisted that we should be able to preach the whole Bible without changing the original meaning of the text or abrogating promises.
In a really interesting illustration MacArthur envisioned an amillennialist evangelizing a Jew. He asked what the amillennialist would say if the Jew asked about the kingdom and the blessings. The amil guy, MacArthur said, would have to say that things have changed, those promises no longer apply to you, we have them now and this is the kingdom. In a shocking conclusion to the illustration, MacArthur said, “if this is the kingdom, then Jesus is not the messiah”. His point being that Jesus literally fulfilled promises of God just as they would have been literally taken, how in the world can we now redefine the kingdom in a different way than it was described in and through the prophets?
This message clears up any questions as to where MacArthur stands on the eschatology issue. His presentation was not an attempt to harmonize Calvinism with a premillennial view but rather to show the inconsistency of the contrary. He also spoke briefly about dispensationalism, but I am not going to cover that here, I got to run.
So check out Tim Challies’ summary on this once it is posted and if you are able to get your mitts on the audio for this it is highly recommended.
I couldn’t help but wonder what the other guest speakers might have been thinking as they sat in the front row. Ligon Duncan and CJ Maheney (preaching tonight in the place of John Piper) both are Amil; Al Mohler and Mark Dever are both Historic Premil (I believe, correct me if I am wrong).
Btw, LA is beautiful and the conference is great, I hope to post some reflections as the week goes on. This year they upgraded some snacks and are handing out Zone protein bars, a major enhancement…however, I am really missing my family…
Subscribe to the Emmaus Podcast
I’m going to stick with Calvin on this one…
thanks for posting on this. I’ll be interested to hear the audio when it’s available, both to see how he supports his argument against the amill position but also to see how he supports taking such an aggressive stand on this against other positions. is this a helpful way to handle the issue?
Dear Mr. Raymond:
Perhaps in one of your Friday Q/A columns you could try to fit the premillenial system of your choice into the parable of the tares of Mt. 13:24-30 and its interpretation in Mt. 13:36-50. I have never been able to fit any version of premillenialism into the parable without damage to the text.
If to spiritualize a text is to render one an amillenialist, then I must be in the company of Peter (Acts 2), Paul (Gal. 4), and Matthew (2). In fact, I detect a pattern: the amillenialist are in control of the entire New Testament!
What ever one wishes to make of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, it is not the method consistently used by the New Testament writers. If you do not believe me, just make a list of Old Testament quotes as found in the New Testament.
MacArthur’s statement about redefining the kingdom contrary to the prophets is not what is being done. Nor is it denying that Jesus is the Messiah. I hope you are in error here. These are cheap statements, quite beneath MacArthur.
We can only define the kingdom the way the apostles did. The Jew-Gentile distinction is abolished within the new man of Christ’s creation. What does an amillenialist tell a Jew regarding the promises? Paul said the they were Ishmaelites. What do you tell them?
Being neither Jew or Gentile,
Randall Walthall
erik…
Was MacArthur’s sermon done in good taste? or was he just trying to make a point?
Just curious…I am a big fan of Johnny Mac and read Fide-O’s take and he didn’t like it…
I suspect stalwart Calvinist RC Sproul would take exception to MacArthur’s talk. Sproul holds to the preterist view of eschatology (see his book The Last Days According To Jesus) and I hope nobody here would question his Calvinist credentials.
Here’s hoping MacArthur’s talk does spark some eschatological debate and inspire each camp to reexamine its position in light of Scripture. It would also be great if each camp came to a better understanding of what the others believe vs. the caricatures we can unconsciously adopt and thoughtlessly perpetuate. (And I’m guilty of that myself, so I appreciated Erik’s clarifying his Dispensationalist beliefs a couple Fridays ago, which presented a more formidable foe than the Lindsey/Robertson/vanImpe et al. straw men Preterists such as myself often erect for target practice.)
real quick on a break here….Seth my answer is yes. I think he was trying to make a point and it was done in good taste.
sorry guys I don’t have too much time to interact….I’m just like FoxNews…We report you decide…
later….
For the gentlemen who stated that pretty much every Reformer and Puritan would disagree with MacArthur and Piper, that is not accurate. Many Puritans were premillennial as were many Dutch Reformed. Also, Beza held to a future salvation of the nation Israel as well.
Let’s all examine our theology in light of Scripture.
Great talk Gentlemen, My head is spinning from all the opins. Will the last preacher standing (or blogger) after the LORD returns again, please tell us really what happened.
randy
I hope to get the opportunity to ask R.C. to comment on this “issue” during the Legonier conference in Orlando this week. After (the Tables will be turned) and John will be the visitor this time. Anyway, it ought to be an interesting conversation starter indeed.
Whoops… (Ligonier). *sigh I always get that wrong.
Mike V, there has been always been those who have held to a pre-mil position, in the church. One thing to note is that there are some definite differences between the Historic pre-mil position and the Dispensational pre-mil position. Below is a quick description of those differences from Wick Broomall. Now, I understand that there are differences inside Dispensationalism itself and in Progressive Dispensationalists on some of these. To be honest, we can’t break all those down and apart, and actually that should be there duty, since so many are so vague and evasive in defining themselves. In my opinion, if there has to be so many re-defining, re-clarifications, and attempts to distant themselves from one another, or from the history of Dispensationalism, maybe it’s not worth clinging to? I want to be clear, that I am not trying to be mean spirited here. I am just trying to be honest. There have been good transitions in Dispensationalism, ie…Progressive Dispensationalism. And I applaud and rejoice in that.
Anyway, below are some of the differences…
Is Dispensational Premillennialism Different from Historic Premillennialism?
From: THE BIBLE AND THE FUTURE by Dr. Wick Broomall
• Older premillennialism taught that the church was in the forevision of the Old Testament prophecy; Dispensationalism teaches that the church is hardly, if at all, in the Old Testament prophets.
• Older premillennialism taught that the great burden of Old Testament prophecy was the coming of Christ to die (at the First Advent) and the kingdom age (at the Second Advent). Dispensationalism says that the great burden of Old Testament prophecy is the kingdom of the Jews.
• Older premillennialism taught that the First Advent was the specific time for Christ to die for man’s sin; Dispensationalism teaches that the kingdom (earthly) should have been set up at the First Advent for that was the predicted time of its coming.
• Older premillennialism taught that the present age of grace was designed by God and predicted in the Old Testament; Dispensationalism holds that the present age was unforeseen in the Old Testament and thus is a “great parenthesis” introduced because the Jews rejected the kingdom.
• Older premillennialism taught that one may divide time in any way desirable so long as one allows for a millennium after the Second Advent; Dispensationalism maintains that the only allowable way to divide time is in seven dispensations. The present age is the sixth such dispensation; the last one will be the millennial age after the Second Advent. It is from this division of time that Dispensationalism gets its name.
• Older premillennialism taught that the Second Advent was to be one event; Dispensationalism holds that the Second Advent will be in two sections – “the Rapture” and “the Revelation.” Between these two events they put the (to them) unfulfilled seventieth week (seven years) of Daniel 9:23-27, which they call “the Great Tribulation.”
• Older premillennialism taught that certain signs must precede the Second Advent; Dispensationalism teaches that no sign precedes the “rapture-stage” of the Second Advent, which may occur “at any moment.” However, there are signs that precede the “revelation-stage” of the Second Advent. The “Rapture” could occur “at any moment,” but the “Revelation” must take place after the seven years of the Great Tribulation. The first stage is undated and unannounced; the second stage is dated and announced.
• Older premillennialism had two resurrections-the righteous before the Millennium; the unrighteous after the Millennium. Dispensationalism has introduced a third resurrection – “tribulation-saints” at the “revelation-stage” of the Second Advent.
• Older premillennialism usually held what is called the “historical symbolic” view of the book of Revelation. This view makes Revelation a picture in symbolic form of the main events in the present age. Dispensationalism holds generally to the “futurist” view of the book of Revelation, which view makes almost the whole book (especially chapters 4 to 19) a literal description of events to take place during “the Great Tribulation” or Daniel’s seventieth week, which Dispensationalism considers as yet unfulfilled.
• The general attitude of older premillennialism was on the whole mild and reverent in its approach to Scripture. There have been some outstanding scholars who have been persuaded that the premillennial is the correct view. In contrast, Dispensationalism has assumed a far more dogmatic attitude. It has introduced a number of novelties in prophetic interpretation that the church never heard of until about a century ago.
Gary, great post above. I also appreciate Erik’s defintions that he gave, it helps guys like me understand where others are coming from. Unfortunately, I have never interacted with Calvinist’s that are Dispensational pre-mil. I hope nobody gets mad, though I didn’t really know they existed. That says more about what kind of a church culture that I have been trapped in for the last decade. Despite what it may seem like, I enjoy these topics, and I have a bigger view of Christ’s kingdom, than I used to. For that I am grateful. Hey, Gary, one more thing. When you say that you are a “Preterist” would you define that as what has been called “partial” (RC Sproul, etc…) or “full” like Ed Stevens. etc…?
I got on opportunity to read the whole message and like someone said earlier, lets make our theology from scripture, not much if left out of this messages, even the historical side of it, and where does the amilenial position rose from, against what the Bible teaches. Lets take this with respect from a very diligent Bible teacher and pastor, let us be humble and see if this things are really like this from scripture. God Bless
MacArthur, the interesting Calvinist. But, amen to premillennial.
Thank you for posting MacArthur’s statements.
My personal interest in this is because Judaism’s objections to Christianity are among the strongest of any religion. It is extremely difficult to answer objections raised by Judaism from an amillennialist or preterist position–since the prophets clearly anticipate a redemption for national Israel.
I have long thought I was alone in being a Calvinist-premillennialist. I’m glad to know that I’m not the only one.
It is a mystery to me why so many people use Calvin as their standard when he shed no blood for their sins. Why not lift the true standard and see Him draw men to Him?
Dale, are you just speaking generically or do you see John Calvin mentioned as either the standard or the Savior? I think Calvin and many men after him, have been lifting high the Savior and praying that God would draw men to him for many years. Calvinism is just a synonym for the gospel. Don’t read more into it here than there is.
I am a historic premil, but find it interesting that a prominent leader such as MacArthur would basically say you are less of a Calvinist if you are not premil. In other words your soteriology can not be right if your eschatology is not right. Correct me if I am wrong but in my experience dispensationalists seem to make more of which side you take on this than any of the other views. I don’t think there is a need to extrapolate eschatology back into soteriology. The emphasis in Scripture seems to be far more on the soteriology than the eschatology. Is it ok to leave room for disagreement in eschatology?
Jon,
“In other words your soteriology can not be right if your eschatology is not right.”
This is not what he said…he said you are not being consistent. Big difference.
In reading your comment, you seem to be a candidate for what MacArthur is talking about…”The emphasis in Scripture seems to be far more on the soteriology than the eschatology.” Be careful to not deemphasize something that God emphasizes.
I am influenced by my upbringing in a church that emphasized eschatology so heavily that soteriology was neglected. My statement was an inference, definitely not something John said. I want to emphasize what God emphasizes, but would argue that eschatology is significantly more subjective than soteriology. I have no idea from my reading of Scripture how historic premil is inconsistent with Calvinistic soteriology, so I will be listening to the sermon in the next few days…
http://strictandparticular.blogspot.com/2007/10/because-time-is-near-by-john-macarthur_16.html
My two cents worth:
I cannot be either an “historical premillennialist” nor a “dispensational premillennialist,” I cannot find that the Scriptures teach either of these, and historically or at present, it seems, no two espousers agree on any one systematic set of principles. Now enters MacArthur with yet another brand, really of dispensationalism – not premillennialism as any of the historic church presented.
Maybe when they can agree as well as the post- and a-millennialists do, I will consider reading them again. Until then, I plan to avoid the stupid mistake of trying to reason with any dispensationalist so I do not have to endure their angry emotional responses.
(I also now will avoid even MacArthur. There are too many good reformed preachers to listen to instead.))
Joe
No time like the present to revive an old blog.
Scripture is premillennial. The issue for the Reformers was soteriology. They did not develop an ecclesiology or an eschatology. They also came from an anti-semitic culture.
The amil view is presuppositional, not exegetical. I keep reading the arguments for amil and the fall flat. Especially those that appeal to Rev. 20 as a defense.
We can’t struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil if the devil is bound. Rev. 20 says in the millennium Satan is bound.
He is not bound today; we are not in the millennium; there is no exegetical defense for the amil view.
MacArthur, who states that he is not a dispensationalist, is correct. If we consistently apply the rules of Bible study to all scripture then our inescapable conclusion is that biblical eschatology is premillennial.
Forget all the banter on the topic; stick with the Word. It’s unfolding before us today.
Just as it’s a common testimony that leaving the Arminian view for sovereignty comes often with struggle, so likewise it’s time to abandon the amil position and get with the Word on eschatology. It’s premillennial.
Hi! This is in regards to John Macarthurs sermon at the 2007 Pastors Conference entitled “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist”.
Does pastor John believe that one can be a historical premillennialists to be a self-respecting calvinists or do they have to be a dispensational premillennialism. They have many differences. Why are the majority of calvinists a-mill or post?
Not sure if you know the answer or could find out for me.
Please respond.
For His Glory-
Matthew
“MacArthur insisted that we should be able to preach the whole Bible without changing the original meaning of the text or abrogating promises.”
How about 1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism saves you”, or “this is my body, this is my blood”?