The Narrow Path Ministries

Just wanted to pass this on. John speaks about the strength of the dispensational view over the Amillennial view. I thought it was a good read as it gives his reasoning behind his view. This is the first time I've heard him talk about the subject (of Amillennialism) in any detail.

http://philgons.com/docs/macarthur-on-a ... ialism.pdf

how important is it to be settled on one view vs the other? i ask because i have no idea what to think. John Mac makes sense to me but so does Steve G.

i think i am resigned to sit back and see what happens (while following the Lord, of course).

TK

Just wanted to pass this on. John speaks about the strength of the dispensational view over the Amillennial view.

Clearly MacArthur promotes pre-millenialism, and attempts to refute
amillenialism. But somehow, he doesn't seem to be pushing dispensationalism. Indeed, I am not really sure from the article that he is a dispensastionalist.

I know he said, "Every one of you is a dispensationalist" and explained what he meant. But he seemed also to question "traditional dispensationalism" I was wondering, Sean, whether you know for sure that he is, in fact, a dispensationalist.

Paidion wrote:

Just wanted to pass this on. John speaks about the strength of the dispensational view over the Amillennial view.

Clearly MacArthur promotes pre-millenialism, and attempts to refute
amillenialism. But somehow, he doesn't seem to be pushing dispensationalism. Indeed, I am not really sure from the article that he is a dispensastionalist.

I know he said, "Every one of you is a dispensationalist" and explained what he meant. But he seemed also to question "traditional dispensationalism" I was wondering, Sean, whether you know for sure that he is, in fact, a dispensationalist.

Yes, He's for sure a dispensationalist. He's stated as much in his books and his radio programs. But this is the first time I've seen him go after other views than his own.

I'm surprised you can't tell his dispensational from the article, as it's all about the OT promises applying to Israel and how the church is seperate.

From the article:

Sure, Israel sinned, became apostate, killed the Son of God. That’s it. You’re out. Forfeits everything. Church gets it all if they can do better than Israel. So far doesn’t look real hopeful.

Christ is elect and those elections are forever, are they not? And there are only two people elections in Scripture; Israel an eschatological group of ethnic Israelites that will constitute the future nation who will receive the promises of God, and the Church. There’s no reason in the Bible to mingle the two; or because the Church is elect, therefore, cancel Israel’s election

Now all that leads us to this: If you get Israel right, you will get eschatology right. If you don’t get Israel right, you will never get eschatology right--never.

Never mingle to two?! Just read Ephesians 2. He made the two [Jews and Gentiles] into one new man [the Church] with Christ as it's head.

The vast majority of the article is dedicated to the belief that the promises given to Abraham are unconditional and for ethic Jews alone. His interpretation of Acts 15:15 is, well, stunning.

I wonder if this is somewhat in response to Hank Hanegraaff's book against dispensationalism. Hank has said several times that he and John are friends. Maybe this is John's way of giving balance to the issue. I don't know.

But for those who are staunchly dispensational, John MacArthur is on your side.

Yes, John is dispensational—but he is a better sort of dispensational than some (e.g., Ryrie, Hodges, etc.) in that he insists upon the acknowledgment of Christ's lordship as a condition of salvation. He takes other dispensationalists to task on this issue in his excellent book "The Gospel According to Jesus," by which he alienated many dispensationalists.

He also has frequently partnered with men like R.C. Sproul and D. James Kennedy in the promotion of Reformed soteriology. These men are amillennial, I believe, so John must think some matters (perhaps many) to be more important than eschatology. I say, good for him! Go, Johnny, go!

John Mac created a bit of a stir at his most recent Shepherd's conference.

Here is at least one response to what he said:

http://www.monergism.com/short_response ... arthur.php

I would have to agree with TK on this.

Joy in Christ,

Haas