March 08, 2007
“Eschatalogically Agnostic”
John MacArthur did it again.
In classic MacArthur-esque fashion, John stirred up the bees’ nest with a blistering thematic sermon (as some would call it) or a rant (as his opponents would call it) on “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-millennialist?”
Now, I am not quite sure what to think of the whole thing.
My new friend, Dr. David Hesselgrave told me that he perceived me to be “eschatalogically agnostic.” I’m not sure exactly what he means by that, but I think it might mean that I really am not quite sure where I stand eschatologically and - gulp! - don’t care.
Maybe I should care.
That’s what I got from John’s speech. (I’m still not sure it should be classifed as a sermon.)
Bottom line is John blasted Amillenarians, built a few straw men, and turned the first event of the conference into a pep-rally for Premillenialists. I would wager that a full third of his audience (including keynote speakers of the conference) were pretty unhappy. Take that back. I know many people were unhappy!
As for me, I am mostly amused. I liked the whole thing. It was very provocative and I thought it was good for the Amils to get a taste of their own medicine for once. I have never heard an Amil present the Premil position correctly. They love to take the abberrant views of extreme dispensationalism and mock the living daylights out of it in condescending tones. It was quite refreshing to watch them get a dose of their own potion.
JMAC scorns their view. Ain’t no doubt ‘bout it.
Al Mohler and Mark Dever: you guys are officially “it’s-not-all-that-important” guys, aren’t you? I have it on good word that from a connection of a connection of a connection that you weren’t humored. (Of course, the truth may have gotten lost in all the connections.)
Lig? What did you think?
Here’s what I liked:
1/ In a day when speakers bend overboard to flatter each other — especially when they are at the same conference — JMAC essentially says, “Welcome to our house. In our house we think that the Amil view is stupid.”
Now, whether or not one is impressed with John’s opinion, one has to admit that it is refreshing to hear one preacher get in other preacher’s faces. It’s too bad John Piper wasn’t there.
I’m thinking John Piper just might have responded last night. John (the non-cessationist Calvinist John, not the quasi-dispensationalist John) is getting old and cranky too! And in my book crusty old sages (I say this respectfully and with a twinkle in my eye) have every right in the world to say what they want to say in a conference.
I liked the boldness.
2. I liked the atmosphere of debate. A challenge was made. That was fun. You should’ve been here to feel the buzz afterwards.
Look for a lot of dialogue on this. For a pretty good knee-jerk reaction from the other side, check this out. The same blogger deals with one specific point by John MacArthur http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2007/03/was-jesus-amil.html”here.
3. I like pre-millenialism. Call me simple, but it just makes sense.
Okay, what I didn’t like:
1. John’s arguments was pocked with problems, the least not being a very unfair representation of amillennialist (I concede this point even if it humored me). Very sad. A very influential pulpit in evangelical (and fundamental) America, over 3000 leaders, and a lop-sided, sometimes sneering (as the amil’s would feel — understandably) attack.
I’m not sure it was best. I personally think somebody of the disposition of a Mark Minnick should have opened that can of worms if it really had to be open. And, by the way, maybe the can does need to be opened. I dunno.
2. It wasn’t spiritually uplifting. Every session and workshop was a very uplifting session for me. I’m sorry that a polemic spirit was thrust on everyone — we were all blind-sided — on an issue that is not central to the Gospel.
Or, maybe I say that because I’m “eschatalogically agnostic.”
3. John is best exegeting a text. Too bad he didn’t do that.
I’ve read Ryrie, Blaising and Bock, et. al. I suppose I do need to spend some brain cells on this matter. Again.
Oh, well.
What’s a guy to do with this?
I love John MacArthur. Maybe he is not right. I admit that. But maybe he is. Maybe he shouldn’t have opened this can of worms this way, but my respect for the man compels me to think long and hard on his challenge.
Can’t be “agnostic” anymore. (And I thought I was busy before!)
This entry was posted in the following categories: Conferences
Bob,
To me, I would have a hard time understanding how anyone could develop a consistent hermeneutic without wrestling this issue to the ground in one way or another. It is greatly tied into dispensationalism, and how one interprets Scripture.
I cannot honestly understand how someone can attempt to study the Word without some framework and basic viewpoint on this subject.
It may not be central to the gospel itself, but it seems essential to drawing conclusions from one’s study.
Good to “see” that you are still alive. The rest of “us workin’ folks” will tune in for more reports.
- Kevin Subra
Posted by: Kevin Subra at March 8, 2007 01:02 PMOK. You’re simple. (Well you did ask for it.)
Did he say anything about the REALLY BIBLICAL ones, the postmills? I confess that I am becoming more and more postmill (and more and more optimistic) the more time goes on. Not that easy in France!
And I think Calvinism and Postmill REALLY go together!
Posted by: Alan Davey at March 8, 2007 02:37 PMThat was an interesting choice for the opening session. You kinda expect a keynote, rally the troops, throw down the gauntlet, yeah we have differences but we are on the same team type of sermon to open up the conference. I haven’t heard the sermon, but I’ve read enough to know that this didn’t quite fill that bill.
Perhaps (cynically), JMac was disappointed that they had to cut off registrations this year and wanted to ensure that there was plenty of room next year.
I’m definitely in the pre-mil camp, but I’m ambivalent about it in that I don’t consider it a line in the sand issue.
Maybe John’s next session will be on credo baptism.
Keep posting…between you and Challies I’ll get my vicarious fill.
Posted by: Pat at March 8, 2007 04:42 PMKevin,
Thanks.
I’m with you basically. I guess where I might differ is that the consequence of the different hermenutic doesn’t negatively effect the core of the Gospel which explains why fundamentalists have been able to co-habit inspite of these differences.
As for me, I have always called myself a “soft dispensationalist” because I habitually approach the Scripture with an “Israel is Israel” interpretation.
However, as one seminary professor just pointed out to me, I think that the Amil are right in what they affirm (the present kingdom) and wrong in what they deny (the future kingdom). That sounds like progressive dispensationalism to me.
Alan,
You are in the company of my dead brothers who I love and admire: Andrew Fuller, William Carey, and Jonathan Edwards. That is, indeed, good company (except for the dead part).
Your optimism is pure faith. There is no encouraging evidence anywhere.
Posted by: bob at March 8, 2007 05:02 PMNo encouraging evidence anywhere? Take off those Western blinders…Africa, Latin America, China and the Far East. Christianity is exploding in the non-western world….there is much to be optimistic about.
Posted by: Ashley Proctor at March 8, 2007 06:50 PMHumm,
With prophecy making up nearly twenty-five percent of the Bible, at some point a preacher will have to consider it crucial to the faith.
Certainly our hermeneutical commitments are key to fleshing out our eschatological framework: A consistent hermeneutic will demand premillennialism. A really consistent hermeneutic will demand dispensational premillennialism.
Having personally traveled to most of the places you cite as exploding with Christianity, I would think it might be warranted to be a little cautious in your optimism. I certainly wouldn’t accuse anyone of having Western blinders on any more than I would of having Western naivete. Many exciting developments indeed, but post-mill quality, not even close. Don’t forget, many of the same people who will tell you that 60% of Americans are born again are providing the reports of what’s happening in those areas.
Posted by: Dave at March 8, 2007 09:52 PMI have been following the discussions about JMac’s message over at www.challies.com I wish I could have been there to hear the message for myself - I will look forward to the mp3.
But in the meantime, can you help me understand the shock and awe that is going on about this? It seems like people are surprised at JMac’s position. One would simply have to read his commentary on Revelation or read the MacArthur Study Bible to know that his eschatological position is that of Pre-Mil. Every Amil attendee should have known that the host of the conference is Pre-Mil. So, to hear him “preach” (or talk about it?) should come as no surprise. Was it the right forum? I don’t know. . . but remember, he is the host - let him speak about what he wants.
From what I can gather the Amils are offended because they feel like JMac misrepresented their position. I say, “So what!” Enjoy the hospitality, the free books, the great food, the lively discussion, etc. Is this really a big deal? Pre-Mils have been misrepresented as well . . .
Posted by: Jeremy at March 8, 2007 10:38 PMAshley,
I have no hard evidence to support your enthusiasm about Asia, et. al, but even if it is true my post-mil brothers (Fuller, Carey, Edwards, and so forth) had the stories of the Great Awakenings still resonating in their ears when they were as optimistic as you are. If China and other countries are indeed having Great Awakening-like revival, praise the Lord! I hardly think that comes close to initiating the Kingdom. If it does, I’m inclined to think that you have rather small expectations.
Jeremy,
I agree. I told someone tonight I think the amil’s should quit whining. The free coffee is awesome. The hospitality is second to none as this amil readily affirms.
Posted by: bob at March 9, 2007 12:04 AMJust incidentally….
I don’t think I know any British premillenialists. I don’t think so. And British dispensationalists are as rare as hens’ teeth or rocking-horse manure, except amongst the more extreme charismatics where dispensationalism seems to be the latest “new thing”.
You watch - they’ll all line up to be counted now!
Posted by: Alan Davey at March 9, 2007 09:17 AMI love John MacArthur.
Posted by: Lameo Nameo at May 3, 2008 05:41 PM
