The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Whats the deal with MacArthur?

John MacArthur (b. 1939) - Reformed dispensational evangelical pastor of Grace Community Church since 1969, a Baptist church affiliated with the Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America. He is also founder of The Master's Seminary, and host of the radio program Grace to You. MacArthur is the primary advocate of Lordship salvation among dispensationalists and has also written in defense of young-earth creationism. With verse-by-verse expository preaching, he opposes the infiltration of liberalism, secular psychology, deliverance ministries, and empty worship forms into the church. Titles: Anxiety Attacked; Ashamed of the Gospel; The Battle for the Beginning; Charismatic Chaos; A Faith to Grow On; Found: God's Will; The Glory of Heaven; The God Who Loves; The Gospel According to Jesus; The Gospel According to the Apostles; Hard to Believe; Introduction to Biblical Counseling; The Master's Plan for the Church; The Murder of Jesus; O Worship the King (Ed.); Onward Christian Soldiers' Rediscovering Expository Preaching; Safe in the Arms of God; Saved Without a Doubt; Terrorism, Jihad, and the Bible; Twelve Ordinary Men; and the MacArthur New Testament Commentary series. He also produced the MacArthur Study Bible and a series of Bible studies.

Boanerges asked?
Dave where did you pull that quote from?

Hey Pilgrim you mentioned somewhere that John MacArthur was Dispy-lite. This saddens me as I've invested a great deal in his commentary. I knew guy once that tried to shove Dispensationalism down my throat...couldn't handle it. Jesus is coming back someday is a lot simpler.

Anyway, just what makes you say that and how is it different from regular old dispensationalism (just typing that makes my fingers sore).

Just curious, Pilgrim referred to John's views as "unique," and I was wondering if that's true (I know he probably didn't mean "totally" unique or eccentric). Is there no one else who shares MacArthur's non-progressive but "lite" dispensationalism? I'm curious because I'd like to go a little bit deeper than the tantalizing hints MacArthur has thrown out over the years. I would imagine it's the closest I could ever come to dispensationalism myself.

P.S. I know Grace is a huge church and this is probably a stupid question for that reason, but do you know Chris Riser? He completed his Divinity and Biblical Counseling degree last year at The Master's Seminary. While at Grace he was the Sunday Evening Children’s Ministries Director, Children’s Preschool and Elementary School Sunday School Director, Home Group Bible Study Shepherd, and Short Term Ministries Team Leader.

"That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews)."

Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that's all I want to take of it, that's where I am on that)

Reformed is also the name of a family of denominations, and can be used to designate specifically Presbyterian theology. I use it more broadly to identify the common doctrine of the Magisterial Reformers Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, and the Puritans and Particular Baptists.)

Realms of Faith

All Baptists maintain a distinction between Israel and the Church therefore they are all dispensational.

Ryrie, representing the "classic" position, points this out by presenting what he called the sine qua non of dispensationalism. Those points are: (1) maintenance of a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, (2) a normal or literal hermeneutic, (3) the underlying purpose of God in human history, namely, His glory.308 He sums it up by stating:

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction of Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalists consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself thought salvation and other purposes as well.


The issues of a "normal hermeneutic" and the "purpose of God in human history" are beyond the scope of this thesis; but the key issue of the distinction of Israel and the Church is not, and it is on this issue that Spurgeon distances himself from Dispensational Premillennialism.
Spurgeon rejected any notion which separated the people of God into separate camps, as taught by Darby and dispensational teaching. In a clear reference to the teaching of Dispensationalists on this point, he clearly rejected this notion in a sermon when he said:

Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. These who saw Christ's day before it came, had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body. Israel in the covenant of grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages. Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way —they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall [emphasis ours].


That Spurgeon sees the Church and Israel united "spiritually", there can be no mistake.

Boanerges said:

Excuse me? Beg your pardon? Surely you are jesting?
A better and more accurate statement would be some Baptists maintain a distinction between Israel and the Church and those that do are Dispensational according to the classic definition of the word.

I, as a Reformed Baptist, and a post-millenialist, do not maintain a distinction between Israel and the Church. Neither did Spurgeon who was a Historic Pre-millenialist.

A Reformed Baptist insists upon a pure Church (believers baptism). The nation of Israel was not pure (believers only) so how can it be called the Church (by Baptist) in a consistent way it can't and this leads to a sometimes subtle difference between the Testaments.

Postmill all the way

Yankee said:
A Reformed Baptist insists upon a pure Church (believers baptism). The nation of Israel was not pure (believers only) so how can it be called the Church (by Baptist) in a consistent way it can't and this leads to a sometimes subtle difference between the Testaments.