John MacArthur on Calvinism and Premillennialism…
March 10th, 2007
Challies.com did a live blog of the Shepherd’s Conference, put on by Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA. It’s hosted by John MacArthur, who dropped some pretty intense bombs on the Calvinist community from the opening session. He also dropped the expectant bombs on the Emergent Church, like this one at the round table discussion:
“The Emerging Church is happy to acquiesce to all of this (not taking a stand on the sinfulness of homosexuality), it accommodates their ability to reach into a younger generation and attract them without these people having to make any radical changes to their lives or world views. This is the first time that the church is really happy to be worldly.”
I’ve long said that I can’t wait until I get to that magical age where I can say whatever I want without a care in the world. I know you know what I’m talking about, and I say it with all due respect to my elders in the faith who have held the line for Jesus through the ups and downs of life. I’m talking about the 70-80 year old zone, the happy place of saying, really, whatever in the world you want. Hey, everybody has aspirations. That happens to be mine. Of course, any who have heard me preach on a regular basis probably can’t imagine that I actually have more outrageous things than my current repertoire that I’m storing up for those days, so I guess you’ll just have to find out with the rest of us if you’re still around.
Back to Mr. MacArthur, then. His opening salvo was actually a surprising, seemingly left field sermon on the necessity of right eschatology for this hour of history. You can find the live blog here. He makes a fascinating point for any theology fanatics out there that would follow the logic of his argument. His main thesis statement is that every self-respecting Calvinist that believes in God’s unconditional election of the saints should consequently be a premillennialist.
Even if you can’t follow the argument that I’m about to lay out, let my try to sum up why this matters - Mr. MacArthur is dropping a strategic bomb on the normative mode of reformed thinking, specifically targeting the long allegiance of most Reformed thinkers to amillennialism. The roots of this line of thinking trace back to the foundation established by Augustine, which Calvin brought into the Protestant tradition. What John MacArthur is attempting is to shift the roots of Reformed theology back to what he would feel are its apostolic roots rather than Calvin’s sloppy eschatology.
He goes so far as to say that Calvin would join his movement (premillennialism), were Calvin alive in our day. That, my friends, is one of the boldest statements I’ve ever heard someone make publicly. I appreciate that he is limiting his premise to premillennialism (the Second Coming precedes the 1000-year earthly Millennial Kingdom of Jesus) as the only viable option, rather than the pre-trib dispensationalism he preaches. I can get on board with premillennialism being the only truly biblical eschatology, while amillennialism (the Second Coming concludes the Millennial Kingdom we now populate) is the option for those who hold to an untenable spiritualized hermeneutic.
I’m going to use a few theological terms and not define them at all in laying this out a bit. For the non-theologically minded, just ask any question you want in the comment section and I’ll answer them all. I will, however, lay out a brief explanation of Calvinism for the uninitiated. The line of thinking behind Calvinism is a logical progression that begins with the critical premise - total depravity. Man, prior to his awakening by God, has nothing good in him and no ability to move towards or respond to God in any way. Since salvation is through faith alone by grace that none may boast in the good works that led to repentance, salvation is fully due to the activity of the Holy Spirit on the heart since man does not even possess the ability to desire God in any way.
If no one can choose God, than only God can choose man. There was nothing inherently good or attractive about us that He would choose us. God’s choice is birthed completely from His mercy towards those He chooses. This is called unconditional election - those who are in the kingdom by grace can only credit the election of God that chose them to be redeemed, cleansed, and qualified by the blood of Christ. This atoning work was done by Jesus for the sake of the elect, not for all of mankind as Arminians (the “men have free will” team) believe. This is called limited atonement - Christ died once for “all”, the all constituting those who were given to Him by God from the foundations of the world.
Thus the grace of the Holy Spirit on the heart to choose God is the means in which one is ushered into the kingdom, and when God elects you and dies for you, your salvation is assured. This is called the irresistible grace of God - the elect of God have no ability to choose God, so they have no corresponding free will to refuse God’s invitation. All credit and glory goes to God for our condition as believers. For those who are truly His, this holds true until death - the principle of the perseverance of the saints (more popularly known as “once saved, always saved”) states that you cannot fall away or choose to reject God after salvation any more than you could choose to accept God initially.
All of these ideas matter to John MacArthur because, in his thinking, what is true for the individual believer must inherently and naturally be true of God’s initial choice for salvation - the nation of Israel. How can one say that God gives an individual no option to reject Him, yet allowed Israel to freely and voluntarily reject Him? How can one say that God is faithful until the end, yet will not answer the promises of the Old Testament made to a people He elected for a purpose?
These are interesting arguments to me - not because I believe them, or subscribe to Calvinism, but I am a premillennialist. For the many who attended this conference who had not considered their eschatology in light of the implications of amillennialism, I wonder if this will have any impact on reformed churches around the nations? Interestingly enough, challies.com saw the a dramatic spike in comments - three to four times more than normal - over this issue. It pushed some buttons and stirred the pot a bit in that world. If that segment of the church can shift in their thinking towards agreement with God’s zeal for Israel, the other aspects of their theology are not so troublesome to me. The manner in which a man gets saved is not a stumbling block for believers, though some enjoy debating God’s methodology.
No, it’s Israel that is the great stumbling block for the modern church. For the unbelieving Jew, as Paul said, the cross was and is the great stumbling block. For the believer, however, it’s what David Pawson called the “scandal of particularity”. The idea that God chose a nation that He has committed to redeem, even in their utter and total rejection of His Son, is a troubling one for many who prefer their Bible and God’s dealings with man to be neat and tidy. There is something messy and disconcerting about God’s zeal for Zion and His commitment to establish a people in His promises, even though the people do not deserve such mercy.
Three issues will cause the church much turmoil and trial in the coming days: the sermon on the mount, eschatology, and Israel. I appreciate anyone in any stream that gives a bold call to align themselves rightly with God in any of these three areas. So what MacArthur did this week matters to God - and it matters to me.
David
Entry Filed under: current events, end times
16 Comments Add your own
1. kyle | March 10th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
you are such an eschatology nerd. i love it. can’t wait for class next week!
2. retroman | March 10th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Yeah, MacArthur stirred things up quite a bit. I read some scathing comments on some other reformed sites, and was immediately thankful for being outside the reformed world. For the most part, a whole lotta offended people debating for the sake of argument (in my view, at least). I’m very much for using our minds to gain “sound doctrine” but in my experience the mental activity often becomes an end in itself. CBB
3. David | March 10th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Kyle - I’m not just an eschatology nerd, I’m a theology dork too.
retroman (who, I am sure, fought Godzilla once and guest-starred a few times on Voltron a few years back) - much of the debate centers around what I believe is the cost or stigma associated with premillennialism.
There is no cost and little consequences to be an amillennial, on the other hand. In that, I think that part of the fight is to maintain the dignity of disassociation from Israel and pre-trib.
4. Amanda B | March 10th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
That’s really, really interesting. I like that it gives some actual points of discussion for a premil and an amil to actually talk about eschatology. In my extremely limited experience, such discussions nearly always boil down to “This verse is literal!” “Is not!” “Is too!” etc., etc. — but this is something that won’t go away by spiritualizing a text.
5. David | March 10th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I agree - thought it is likely that some will simply dismiss MacArthur out of hand because of his dispensational background rather than discern whether or not his argument has merit.
6. tomcole | March 13th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Hey Dave, since I’m a bit older than you, and my chances of actually being alive when you get old enough to say whatever is on your mind, maybe you could sneak in a few of those things early for my sake?
7. David | March 13th, 2007 at 7:44 am
I’ll do my best.
8. Idhrendur | March 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Interesting…
Definitely beyond the realms where I have enough knowledge to offer an intelligent opinion, but just for fun, I’m gonna send over a presbyterian friend of mine, just to see what he’ll have to say.
9. David | March 15th, 2007 at 8:14 am
I’d love to hear the feedback, Idrendur!
10. Andrew Chen | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
So I’m preparing to give a message at tomorrow’s Daniel Academy assembly, I get distracted, start browsing through your blog and stumble upon on this old post.
I spent 15 years of my life attending Grace Community Church, hearing John MacArthur preach every Sunday, from my years in the nursery right up to high school. I even went to their elementary/ jr. high school for a few years. I sat in on the shepherd’s conferences, listened to and repeated a lot of theological terminology that I didn’t understand, called ‘charismatics’ heretics and frauds, mocked and condemned the prophetic movement that I didn’t know anything about, summed up my eschatology by saying, “Yeah, you really don’t want to be Left Behind.” and was absolutely convinced that true Christianity and relationship with God is completely void of emotion and that if you feel anything its probably just indigestion or maybe a demon. That was right up until I attended STI 2006 and things changed just a little bit. It’s just funny to me that just a few years ago in school I was writing papers and pontificating about how the gift of tongues have ceased, how the church will be raptured before the tribulation, how dreams, visions and prophecy are heresy and how you can’t feel the Holy Spirit. Now in school, I’m praying in tongues daily, prophesying over my friends, praying for dreams and visions, interceding and anticipating the end-time prayer and worship movement, and spending hours enjoying the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t suppose I’m really contributing much to this discussion. I just thought it was funny. I don’t hear much about John MacArthur, the Shepherd’s conference or Grace Community Church around IHOP. Reading this post conjured up some memories. It’s interesting and a little bizarre for me to hear you talk about my old pastor. I never expected anyone around IHOP, let alone Dave Sliker to say something positive about MacArthur’s eschatology! But as I think back on my days as a young, impressionable youth at Grace Community Church, sitting lifelessly in those ancient red pews slanted just enough so that my bible and sunday bulletin would slide onto the floor with a muted thud as MacArthur’s theological banter would flow from the pulpit and fly right over my head; I realize, it’s really my own fault for not staying awake during the sermons. Maybe he did have some good things to say after all. Oh well, I’ll be honest,I do like FCF a lot better…I don’t need a dictionary of theological terms to decipher every message. My Bible doesn’t slide off my lap either, thats a big plus.
11. David | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 am
Andrew - thanks for the entertaining trip down memory lane. In some ways, your testimony isn’t too different from Mike Bickle, who started out as one of the more intense “anti-charismatic” preachers out there as a 19 yr old.
MacArthur is many things, but no one has ever accused him of being a youth guy.
12. Guy | November 10th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Hello Dave, i have been really asking this question lately, but do not know who to ask it to. you may be the one of the best people i could ask.
In majority of the short time that i have been studying the bible, i have always leaned towards reformed theology, but never called myself a calvinist. i just held some of the reformed views tightly and some loosely. yet in the last few months, getting into the bible, and some of Piper’s stuff, Wayne Grudem’s Systematic theology, some of J.I. Packer’s literature, as well as this guy named Mark Driscoll from Mars hill Church i would have to say i am now a full 5 point calvinist (yet without feeling contempt at all about those that are not. its just i personally feel it is a more biblical stand point on the sovereignty of God). Now, i still hold all my views, in relation to the prayer movement, the forerunner ministry, the restoration of the apostolic ministry, the bridal paradigm, and the interpreting of the entirety of Scripture through an eschatological lens. also i do believe in Mike’s view of apostolic premillennialism, yet i wanted to ask you as a brother and someone i look up to, what are the dangers of having the reformed views of John Calvin, in terms of salvation, predestination, unconditional election, the perseverance of the saints… etc. yet holding to the bridal paradigm of the kingdom and the different views of IHOP-KC at the same time? is there anything detrimental to that?
thank you and God bless you
13. Erik Hofmann | December 17th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Hi Dave, I’m a long time fan but first time blog commenter. I’m on Young Life staff and have come out to KC to visit a few times. YL’s roots are very reformed. I was raised on Calvin. Feels like there’s an intimacy shift happening in YL. New priority on prayer & fasting, 24/7 prayer places at some of our summer camps, etc. Pretty exciting stuff. My family is coming in a couple weeks for the onething deal. Anyway, I’m one of the recovering “Mr Spock”s who is trying to embrace a new faith experience. Like the guy asked last month, who commented on Nov 10 above, how does IHOP fare mesh with Calvinism? Is there an IHOP title that gets into that? His, Erik
14. Gerand | January 5th, 2010 at 2:21 am
This is clear thinking to me. I agree with you. Gerand
15. Guy | January 13th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
May i ask, what would you say is clear thinking?
16. Don starr | February 10th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Dave I am a great fan of MacArthur - have his study bible and listen to him on radio early mornings - however I do have a problem with calvanist thinking because of so many comments in the new testiment saying “Whosoever” etc. - could uou comment on this to help me out
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed