Was MacArthur a dispensationalist?

[Carbon]

I'm starting a new thread here because this subject seems to be hijacking a thread in the introductory area for new members. I'm the major cause
I'll start it with the post that started the subject.

@fastfredy0 wrote:
MacArthur was not a dispensationalist IMO but the following [video clip] would explain his position more clearly. (The video clip starts at minute 18:05.) Aside: A lot of good questions/answers on that clip.

Might I add, this is not a bad thing by any means, I also know the subject of dispensationalism has come up a couple/few times. But this particular one includes John MacArthur, a brother in Christ who recently died and went home with the Lord Jesus.

Personally, I had and still have a lot of respect for Macarthur; his soteriology, I believe, is on point, but his Echatology is wanting. A dispensationalist he was, personally, I believe now he is an Amillennialist.

I find it puzzling how a man can be on point with his soteriology but be so off the mark with his eschatology. I think after seeing this before in history, Charles Spurgeon, for example. (For the record, Spurgeon was not a dispensationalist, but he was a historical premillennialist as was James Boice.) I think it's because these men were called so powerfully to teach certain doctrines that they just did not put the study and time into eschatology.
But dispensationalism and historical premillennialism are quite different.

Dispensationalism has (is) its own hermeneutic. Ad as far as I believe, it is not in harmony with reformed theology. I also believe it walks the fence of heresy.

The subject I am looking at is that MacArthur characterized Amillennialism as holding to replacement theology, or supersessionism. I believe this was due to his lack of understanding of the subject.

I believe @CrowCross is a dispensationalist and probably agrees with MacArthur, and thats fine. This is not an attack on any person; if anything, on the system as a challenge.

If anyone would like to bring up any defence of the system, or present a challenge?

 

[Carbon]

For now, I would like to mention one thing, and this is where I believe the error of dispensationalism hermeneutic stems from, or at least one of the places. And that is their disagreement that we should interpret and or understand the Old Testament by the New Testament. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, which, for the most part, they disagree with.

 

[makesends]

A natural question: Did MacArthur disagree with covenant theology? I'm not talking about focus, here, but whether the two are, in the end, incompatible.

 

[Carbon]

A natural question: Did MacArthur disagree with covenant theology? I'm not talking about focus, here, but whether the two are, in the end, incompatible.

McArthur did not agree with Covenant theology; he was a firm proponent of dispensationalism.
The two systems are not compatible.

 

[Arial]

McArthur did not agree with Covenant theology; he was a firm proponent of dispensationalism.
The two systems are not compatible.

He not only did not agree with it but has a video (which I will not post) vehemently opposing CT hermeneutic. Saying that if some of the promises in the OT made to Isreal were fulfilled literally, then all of them must be.

That statement alone is rife with fallacies: Hasty generalization, implicit false dilemma, composition fallacy.

And MacArthur is not consistent with that hermeneutic himself. For example, his reason for promoting the reinstatement of the sacrifices during the literal thousand-year reign of Christ is mainly Ez 40-48, especially 18-27. In his study notes, even though the passages are explicitly calling those sacrifices sin offerings, he says they are not sin offerings and invents something nowhere in the passages; they are memorial offerings.

 

[John Bauer]

John MacArthur was a “leaky dispensationalist” in the sense that he rejected covenant theology as a system but in practice some of his positions overlapped with covenant-theological conclusions. He was dispensationalist in retaining a future national role for Israel, and yet his hermeneutic increasingly emphasized the unity of the biblical storyline rather than strict dispensational compartmentalization.

 

[fastfredy0]

The tension between John MacArthur and many Reformed theologians developed because they agreed on several doctrines (Calvinism, authority of Scripture, salvation by grace) but strongly disagreed on how the Bible’s covenants and prophecies should be interpreted.

The disagreement centered on Israel, the Church, and the millennium.

---

1. The central disagreement: Israel vs. the Church​

MacArthur believed:

• Israel and the Church remain distinct in God’s plan.
• The promises God made to ethnic Israel in the Old Testament (land, kingdom, national restoration) will be literally fulfilled to Israel in the future.

Many Reformed theologians instead hold covenant theology, associated historically with figures like John Calvin and Louis Berkhof.

Their view typically teaches:

• The Church is the continuation or fulfillment of Israel.
• Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled spiritually in the Church, not in a future Jewish nation.

MacArthur believed this interpretation “spiritualized” Old Testament prophecy.

---

2. The millennium debate​

MacArthur held a premillennial view:

• Christ returns before a literal 1,000-year kingdom on earth (based on Revelation 20).
• Israel will be restored as a nation during that kingdom.

Many Reformed theologians are amillennial, a view popularized by Augustine of Hippo.

Amillennialism teaches:

• The “millennium” is symbolic, representing Christ’s current reign through the Church.
• There will not be a future earthly kingdom centered on Israel.

MacArthur believed this view ignored the plain meaning of Old Testament prophecies.

---

3. The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants​

MacArthur argued that certain covenants must be fulfilled literally:

• The Abrahamic Covenant — land promised to Israel
• The Davidic Covenant — a physical descendant of David ruling on a throne

He taught that Jesus will fulfill the Davidic covenant during the future millennial kingdom.


Covenant theologians typically say these promises are fulfilled spiritually in Christ’s present reign.

---

4. The Strange Fire era debate​

The conflict became more visible during debates connected to the 2013 conference and book “Strange Fire.”

While the conference mainly criticized charismatic theology, it also highlighted MacArthur’s broader theological framework and sparked disputes with Reformed theologians who disagreed with his dispensational premillennialism.

Some Reformed leaders argued dispensationalism:

• divides Scripture too sharply
• separates Israel and the Church too strongly

MacArthur responded that covenant theology reinterprets Old Testament prophecy.

---

5. MacArthur’s key claim​

MacArthur frequently summarized the disagreement this way:

The issue is whether the Old Testament promises to Israel mean what they say.

He believed that if prophecy is interpreted literally and consistently, a future national restoration of Israel and a millennial kingdom follow naturally.

---

In short
MacArthur agreed with Reformed theology on Calvinism and salvation, but he sharply disagreed on:

1. Israel vs. the Church
2. The millennium
3. How Old Testament prophecy should be interpreted

This made him somewhat unique: a Calvinist who remained strongly premillennial and dispensational.

 

[makesends]

McArthur did not agree with Covenant theology; he was a firm proponent of dispensationalism.
The two systems are not compatible.

Ok

Maybe as usual it's my ignorance, but I see Covenant Theology loosely, as a view of God from beginning to end accomplishing his covenant, stated several different ways, consummated in Rev 21. I believe in that. I don't think of that as holding to one eschatology or another.

If I look at the ages dispensationally, all I'm seeing is the dispensations, without the 'sharp' separation between promises fulfilled to Israel and the Church, and as only one gospel. But, as you say, and as apparently everyone else agrees, I guess what I'm seeing there is not Dispensationalism.

Oh well.

 

[Josheb]

Was MacArthur Dispensationalist?

Yes, JMac was Dispensationally premillennial. However, JMac has always been a hybrid. He was ardently Reformed in his soteriology. The problem is he held to Reformed perspectives on Christology and ecclesiology but never (to my knowledge) reconciled the contradictions inherent when asserting Reformed doctrine and Dispensational Premillennialism.

To the degree that Dispensational Premillennialism is more generically known as "modern futurism," JMac can easily be demonstrated to be Dispensationalist. In his commentary on Revelation, "Because the Time is Near," (the "is" is underlined in the title of the book), for example, JMac summarizes the four leading eschatological povs, calling them "Preterist," "Historicist," Idealist," and "Futurist." He concludes that chapter stating,

"The futurist approach see chapters 4-22 [of Revelation] as predictions of people and events yet to come in the future. Only this approach allows Revelation to be interpreted following the same literal method used throughout the rest of scripture. The other three approaches are forced to allegorizing or spiritualizing the text to sustain their interpretations. The futurist approach provides justice to Revelation's claim as prophecy..... The futurist approach takes the book's meaning as God gave it."​

Aside from the fact most of that quote is utterly false, what MacArthur has done with the chapter's conclusion is stake Futurism against Historicism. In other words, as a premillennialist, he has stated Historicism, or Historic Premillennialism, does not do justice to the book of Revelation. Only Futurism does that. In other words, his futurism is not Historicist. That only leaves Dispensationalism. Later, after JMac covers the seven letters and begins to discuss the 24 elders of Revelation 4, he lists possible interpretations but concludes, "The most likely option is that they represent the raptured church..." The next chapter is on the tribulation's seals. This means he is a pre-tribulational rapturist. There is only one eschatological point of view, only one theology, that asserts a pretribulational rapture and that theology/eschatology is Dispensational Premillennialism. Historical Premils, Amils, Postmils, and Idealists al teach the rapture and Second Coming coincide; they are not separated. To confirm this, on page 287 JMac states, "The second coming must be distinguished from the rapture f the church prior to the seven-year tribulation. At the rapture, Christ comes for His Saints. At the second coming He comes with them. At the rapture Christ meets the saints in the air to take them to heaven. At the second coming , He descends with them from heaven to the earth."

So...... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

John MacArthur was a Dispensationalist.

He was an inconsistent Dispensationalist, a hybrid of Reformed Theology and Dispensationalist Theology, but he taught all the core tenets of Dispensationalism when it comes to Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology. Only his soteriology was definitely classic/Reformed. And since there are inherent conflicts with Reformed doctrines and Dispensational doctrines he was, at best, inconsistent.

He was also partial-preterist but never acknowledged it. I've never read any evidence from him he was even aware of that particular inconsistency. Gotta go. More on that later, if anyone is interested.

 

[Arial]

Maybe as usual it's my ignorance, but I see Covenant Theology loosely, as a view of God from beginning to end accomplishing his covenant, stated several different ways, consummated in Rev 21. I believe in that. I don't think of that as holding to one eschatology or another.

Covenant is the divinely established framework by which God enters into and governs his relationship with human beings. In Reformed theology covenant is the fundamental organizing principle of redemptive history. And the Bible from cover to cover is about redemptive history.

The Covenant of Redemption within the Godhead is the fountain head of all that follows. And the CoR is about giving a people to the Son. We see that announcement made in Gen 3:15. "He will crush your head, and you will bruise your heel." So, if all flows from that promise made to the Son, all the rest is Christ centered and stays Christ centered. It does not deviate off on a sideline of an ethnic national people or land. Israel was for Christ. The church is for Christ.

The people of God are not confined to Jews or to a nation. The Father gave the Son people from all nations---the whole world (all of creation). Even in the OT under the Mosaic covenant, it was not limited to Hebrews only.

 

[Carbon]

The tension between John MacArthur and many Reformed theologians developed because they agreed on several doctrines (Calvinism, authority of Scripture, salvation by grace) but strongly disagreed on how the Bible’s covenants and prophecies should be interpreted.

The disagreement centered on Israel, the Church, and the millennium.

---

1. The central disagreement: Israel vs. the Church​

MacArthur believed:

• Israel and the Church remain distinct in God’s plan.
• The promises God made to ethnic Israel in the Old Testament (land, kingdom, national restoration) will be literally fulfilled to Israel in the future.

Many Reformed theologians instead hold covenant theology, associated historically with figures like John Calvin and Louis Berkhof.

Their view typically teaches:

• The Church is the continuation or fulfillment of Israel.
• Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled spiritually in the Church, not in a future Jewish nation.

MacArthur believed this interpretation “spiritualized” Old Testament prophecy.

---

2. The millennium debate​

MacArthur held a premillennial view:

• Christ returns before a literal 1,000-year kingdom on earth (based on Revelation 20).
• Israel will be restored as a nation during that kingdom.

Many Reformed theologians are amillennial, a view popularized by Augustine of Hippo.

Amillennialism teaches:

• The “millennium” is symbolic, representing Christ’s current reign through the Church.
• There will not be a future earthly kingdom centered on Israel.

MacArthur believed this view ignored the plain meaning of Old Testament prophecies.

---

3. The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants​

MacArthur argued that certain covenants must be fulfilled literally:

• The Abrahamic Covenant — land promised to Israel
• The Davidic Covenant — a physical descendant of David ruling on a throne

He taught that Jesus will fulfill the Davidic covenant during the future millennial kingdom.


Covenant theologians typically say these promises are fulfilled spiritually in Christ’s present reign.

---

4. The Strange Fire era debate​

The conflict became more visible during debates connected to the 2013 conference and book “Strange Fire.”

While the conference mainly criticized charismatic theology, it also highlighted MacArthur’s broader theological framework and sparked disputes with Reformed theologians who disagreed with his dispensational premillennialism.

Some Reformed leaders argued dispensationalism:

• divides Scripture too sharply
• separates Israel and the Church too strongly

MacArthur responded that covenant theology reinterprets Old Testament prophecy.

---

5. MacArthur’s key claim​

MacArthur frequently summarized the disagreement this way:


He believed that if prophecy is interpreted literally and consistently, a future national restoration of Israel and a millennial kingdom follow naturally.

---

In short
MacArthur agreed with Reformed theology on Calvinism and salvation,

Yes.

but he sharply disagreed on:

1. Israel vs. the Church

He sure did.

1. The millennium

Yes

1. How Old Testament prophecy should be interpreted

Yes

This made him somewhat unique: a Calvinist who remained strongly premillennial and dispensational.

Yes, I think that is quite unique, not good, but unique.

 

[Josheb]

You have all cited examples of scriptural waywardness in John MacArthur's teachings. Well done. However, the bigger problems, imo, within Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) occur in what is not taught. For example, it is true and correct that DP teaches the inevitable and necessary physical reign of physical Jesus physically on the earth. JMac, as a good DPist agrees and this is what he taught. What they DO NOT say is that Christ is not now reigning over all the earth and, on the rare occasion Jesus' sovereignty is acknowledged they will say his reign will (somehow) be different). In other words, if Jesus is now sovereign over all creation (not just earth), then why does he need to come to earth to reign at all?

Let me back up just a little because the first silence taught in DP is that dispensationalism can be held without being premillennial. The fact of history is that all Darbyite dispensationalism is premillennialist, but they never come out and state that fact. They constantly use the word "dispensationalism" as if there is a dispensational theology that isn't premillennial. This is a lie of omission. Dispensational Premillennialism is a mouthful, granted, but it is the fact of the theology. The entire theology is built on a means of dividing (parsing) scripture that is invented. Scripture itself never uses the word, nor the concept, of a "dispensation" to divide itself. Even if we were to accept an implication that scripture infers dispensations, there's no scripture-provided definition of the term. Both the construct and the definition of the term are man-made. Never does DP come out and state, "This concept was invented by theologians, along with the definition of the term." Instead, they hide behind the few mentions of the word "oikonomia" and teach because the word is used their definition and use of the word is valid and veracious. The Hebrew word for "dispensation" (היתר = hetter) does not exist in the OT. Has anyone here ever heard/read a DPist report that fact?

The point is there is no such thing as a non-premillennial Dispensationalist but they do not say, " Dispensational Premillennialism" when they discuss their own theology. They call themselves "Dispensationalists" as if all Dispensationalists are alike when that is not the truth.

No one here will find a DPist acknowledging another fact of Christian history: Since the beginning of post-New Testament authorship not one single premillennial prediction has ever come true. Not one. I myself did not realize this abject failure until recently. I've been re-reading Williams C. Watson's "Dispensationalism Before Darby," and throughout the book Watson quotes from an abundance of premillennialists. He provides a substantive pool of evidence that premillennialists existed long before Darby. His implied argument is that because premillennialists have existed going all the way back to the ECFs, Dispensational Premillennialism existed going all the way back to the ECFs. That is like saying the grapefruit (a hybrid creation of humanity) has always existed because the pomelo has always existed. No, the grapefruit is a man-made invention. It was created by breeding pomelos and oranges together, something that does not naturally occur in the fruit tree world. Nowhere does Watson ever mention ALL the premillennialists he quotes were wrong! He is utterly silent on the matter. He never mentions the ANFs (Ante-Nicene Fathers) viewed dispensations differently. In a recent conversation on this subject I went through all the writings of Clement and Ignatius (two of the earliest ANFs) and quoted them teaching there were only two dispensations (not seven or nine or however many DP teaches) and how they correlated those two dispensations to the old covenant and new covenant and subordinated both under Christ. In other words, long before the invention of Covenant Theology the ANFs construed a dispensation in the context of God's covenant. DP is silent on that fact.

So is John MacArthur silent.


So let me return to the problem of Christology. A Jesus who is not currently reigning over the earth, a Jesus who is not, cannot, and will not rule over the earth until he is physically on the earth is a much different Jesus than what scripture teaches. I've posted all the many, many scriptures reporting Jesus is NOW Lord over all the heavens and the earth many times but if anyone wants to see it again then just ask. The point is that DP teaches a different Jesus than the one scripture asserts. This is a very serious problem. This problem should be obvious

OBVIOUS​

to everyone but it escapes the DPist. I wish I could make that font bigger because the logical necessity of Jesus being Lord and King over EVERYTHING is inescapable the minute his divinity is acknowledged. To be God is to be almighty. ALL MIGHTY. There is, therefore, no fraction of space where God is not God and almightily sovereign, no fraction of a nano second when that does not exist. Anyone here ever read/hear a DPist explain the discrepancy between that fact and DPism? No, because they avoid that problem. The reason this silence occurs is because DP elevates two previously minor doctrine above what has historically been the preeminent doctrines of Christianity. Ecclesiology and eschatology are elevated in DP. Prior to DP both doctrines were subordinate to Christology and soteriology. The entire Bible is about Jesus and the means of transformation provided by God through His resurrected Son. DP says otherwise but they do not come right out and actually state that fact!!! They will acknowledge their emphasis on ecclesiology and eschatology (Chafer and/or Ryrie can be found explicitly stating that emphasis in their books "Dispensationalism" and "Dispensationalism." JMac's teachings are consistent with these books but none of the three men are ever forthcoming to say the DP emphasis on ecclesiology and eschatology is a change in the ordering of Christian doctrine. They know that is the fact of Christian history, doctrinally speaking. When a person willfully and knowingly withholds information with an intent to misrepresent what they are teaching that is called a lie of omission.

A Jesus that isn't currently ruling the entire creation is a bad Christology.

JMac teaches Jesus must and will come to earth to rule and the earthly reign of the Messiah will not exist unless and until that happens.

This post is long so I will stop here but DP also teaches a different soteriology, and they do not come right out and state that fact. What they do say is that salvation is by grace through faith and most of them are Reformed in that perspective. The problem is that DP implicitly teaches salvation can be by works and it will be by works for X number of Jews. Anyone interest in how that plays out in scripture versus Dispensational Premillennialism need only ask. All the constituent elements of DP eschatology can be found in JMac's teaching because ecclesiologically speaking, JMac was Dispensationally Premillennial. He was not a Historic Premillennialist. He overtly excluded Historicism as a valid possibility (as I demonstrated in my op-reply). Someone above mentioned JMac as a "leaky" Dispensationalist. His biggest leak was in the arenas of who and what is Jesus and the nature of salvation from sin and wrath.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm starting a new thread here because this subject seems to be hijacking a thread in the introductory area for new members. I'm the major cause
I'll start it with the post that started the subject.



Might I add, this is not a bad thing by any means, I also know the subject of dispensationalism has come up a couple/few times. But this particular one includes John MacArthur, a brother in Christ who recently died and went home with the Lord Jesus.

Personally, I had and still have a lot of respect for Macarthur; his soteriology, I believe, is on point, but his Echatology is wanting. A dispensationalist he was, personally, I believe now he is an Amillennialist.

I find it puzzling how a man can be on point with his soteriology but be so off the mark with his eschatology. I think after seeing this before in history, Charles Spurgeon, for example. (For the record, Spurgeon was not a dispensationalist, but he was a historical premillennialist as was James Boice.) I think it's because these men were called so powerfully to teach certain doctrines that they just did not put the study and time into eschatology.
But dispensationalism and historical premillennialism are quite different.

Dispensationalism has (is) its own hermeneutic. Ad as far as I believe, it is not in harmony with reformed theology. I also believe it walks the fence of heresy.

The subject I am looking at is that MacArthur characterized Amillennialism as holding to replacement theology, or supersessionism. I believe this was due to his lack of understanding of the subject.

I believe @CrowCross is a dispensationalist and probably agrees with MacArthur, and thats fine. This is not an attack on any person; if anything, on the system as a challenge.

If anyone would like to bring up any defence of the system, or present a challenge?

he was one, but called Himself a "leaky" one, as many holding to that theology would not agree to the Doctrines of Grace, as he did ascribe to

 

[JesusFan]

You have all cited examples of scriptural waywardness in John MacArthur's teachings. Well done. However, the bigger problems, imo, within Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) occur in what is not taught. For example, it is true and correct that DP teaches the inevitable and necessary physical reign of physical Jesus physically on the earth. JMac, as a good DPist agrees and this is what he taught. What they DO NOT say is that Christ is not now reigning over all the earth and, on the rare occasion Jesus' sovereignty is acknowledged they will say his reign will (somehow) be different). In other words, if Jesus is now sovereign over all creation (not just earth), then why does he need to come to earth to reign at all?

Let me back up just a little because the first silence taught in DP is that dispensationalism can be held without being premillennial. The fact of history is that all Darbyite dispensationalism is premillennialist, but they never come out and state that fact. They constantly use the word "dispensationalism" as if there is a dispensational theology that isn't premillennial. This is a lie of omission. Dispensational Premillennialism is a mouthful, granted, but it is the fact of the theology. The entire theology is built on a means of dividing (parsing) scripture that is invented. Scripture itself never uses the word, nor the concept, of a "dispensation" to divide itself. Even if we were to accept an implication that scripture infers dispensations, there's no scripture-provided definition of the term. Both the construct and the definition of the term are man-made. Never does DP come out and state, "This concept was invented by theologians, along with the definition of the term." Instead, they hide behind the few mentions of the word "oikonomia" and teach because the word is used their definition and use of the word is valid and veracious. The Hebrew word for "dispensation" (היתר = hetter) does not exist in the OT. Has anyone here ever heard/read a DPist report that fact?

The point is there is no such thing as a non-premillennial Dispensationalist but they do not say, " Dispensational Premillennialism" when they discuss their own theology. They call themselves "Dispensationalists" as if all Dispensationalists are alike when that is not the truth.

No one here will find a DPist acknowledging another fact of Christian history: Since the beginning of post-New Testament authorship not one single premillennial prediction has ever come true. Not one. I myself did not realize this abject failure until recently. I've been re-reading Williams C. Watson's "Dispensationalism Before Darby," and throughout the book Watson quotes from an abundance of premillennialists. He provides a substantive pool of evidence that premillennialists existed long before Darby. His implied argument is that because premillennialists have existed going all the way back to the ECFs, Dispensational Premillennialism existed going all the way back to the ECFs. That is like saying the grapefruit (a hybrid creation of humanity) has always existed because the pomelo has always existed. No, the grapefruit is a man-made invention. It was created by breeding pomelos and oranges together, something that does not naturally occur in the fruit tree world. Nowhere does Watson ever mention ALL the premillennialists he quotes were wrong! He is utterly silent on the matter. He never mentions the ANFs (Ante-Nicene Fathers) viewed dispensations differently. In a recent conversation on this subject I went through all the writings of Clement and Ignatius (two of the earliest ANFs) and quoted them teaching there were only two dispensations (not seven or nine or however many DP teaches) and how they correlated those two dispensations to the old covenant and new covenant and subordinated both under Christ. In other words, long before the invention of Covenant Theology the ANFs construed a dispensation in the context of God's covenant. DP is silent on that fact.

So is John MacArthur silent.


So let me return to the problem of Christology. A Jesus who is not currently reigning over the earth, a Jesus who is not, cannot, and will not rule over the earth until he is physically on the earth is a much different Jesus than what scripture teaches. I've posted all the many, many scriptures reporting Jesus is NOW Lord over all the heavens and the earth many times but if anyone wants to see it again then just ask. The point is that DP teaches a different Jesus than the one scripture asserts. This is a very serious problem. This problem should be obvious

OBVIOUS​

to everyone but it escapes the DPist. I wish I could make that font bigger because the logical necessity of Jesus being Lord and King over EVERYTHING is inescapable the minute his divinity is acknowledged. To be God is to be almighty. ALL MIGHTY. There is, therefore, no fraction of space where God is not God and almightily sovereign, no fraction of a nano second when that does not exist. Anyone here ever read/hear a DPist explain the discrepancy between that fact and DPism? No, because they avoid that problem. The reason this silence occurs is because DP elevates two previously minor doctrine above what has historically been the preeminent doctrines of Christianity. Ecclesiology and eschatology are elevated in DP. Prior to DP both doctrines were subordinate to Christology and soteriology. The entire Bible is about Jesus and the means of transformation provided by God through His resurrected Son. DP says otherwise but they do not come right out and actually state that fact!!! They will acknowledge their emphasis on ecclesiology and eschatology (Chafer and/or Ryrie can be found explicitly stating that emphasis in their books "Dispensationalism" and "Dispensationalism." JMac's teachings are consistent with these books but none of the three men are ever forthcoming to say the DP emphasis on ecclesiology and eschatology is a change in the ordering of Christian doctrine. They know that is the fact of Christian history, doctrinally speaking. When a person willfully and knowingly withholds information with an intent to misrepresent what they are teaching that is called a lie of omission.

A Jesus that isn't currently ruling the entire creation is a bad Christology.

JMac teaches Jesus must and will come to earth to rule and the earthly reign of the Messiah will not exist unless and until that happens.

This post is long so I will stop here but DP also teaches a different soteriology, and they do not come right out and state that fact. What they do say is that salvation is by grace through faith and most of them are Reformed in that perspective. The problem is that DP implicitly teaches salvation can be by works and it will be by works for X number of Jews. Anyone interest in how that plays out in scripture versus Dispensational Premillennialism need only ask. All the constituent elements of DP eschatology can be found in JMac's teaching because ecclesiologically speaking, JMac was Dispensationally Premillennial. He was not a Historic Premillennialist. He overtly excluded Historicism as a valid possibility (as I demonstrated in my op-reply). Someone above mentioned JMac as a "leaky" Dispensationalist. His biggest leak was in the arenas of who and what is Jesus and the nature of salvation from sin and wrath.

the reason that Jesus has a Second Coming is to right the wrongs of the Fall and recreate paradise on earth, as he is right now involved in High priestly Ministry, not His King ruling until he ushers in his Kingdom upon the Earth at Hs return

 

[Josheb]

the reason that Jesus has a Second Coming is to right the wrongs of the Fall and recreate paradise on earth, as he is right now involved in High priestly Ministry, not His King ruling until he ushers in his Kingdom upon the Earth at Hs return

JMac.

The thread is about JMac.

The thread is not about Dispensational Premillennialism and why it teaches what it teaches. My survey of DPism is solely intended to prove JMac is a Dispensationalist because he teaches all of the many things I described. The thread is not about whether or not you or I are Dispensationalists or what you or I believe apart from whether or not JMac was dispensationalist. When quoting me, and when posting to me to comment on what I have posted, would you please keep all comments and inquiries op-relevant. JMac was dispensationalist and he was a Dispensational Premillennialist. There are many examples by which JMac can be demonstrated to have been Dispensational Premillennialist. Why DP teaches what DP teaches is irrelevant to the question asked in the op.

Q: Was John MacArthur a Dispensationalist?

A: Yes, John MacArthur was a Dispensationalist, and definitely a Dispensational Premillennialist.​

For the readers in general: I forgot to include something specific about JMac's Dispensationally Premillennial eschatology. John MacArthur repeatedly taught "this" is the generation that will see the Dispensational Premillennial interpretation of end times occur. The discerning mind will contemplate what he meant by "this generation," because MacArthur is now dead. His generation has come and gone..... and nothing JMac taught happened. When a 16-year-old hears the 40-year-old JMac mention the words "this generation," that teenager is a different generation than the one in which JMac exists. The 16-year-old hearing the 80-year-old JMac teach the same timeframe is in a different generation than the 80-year-old JMac and the now56-year-old earlier hearer. JMac taught the "this generation" timeframe across three different generations and if the original words are to be taken literally then JMac was referring solely to his generation, not the generation coming after him, nor the generation coming after that next generation. Furthermore, if Mr. MacArthur is using the phrase any differently than when Jesus used the phrase then JMac is not teaching scripture correctly.

And this is what has happened throughout Dispensational Premillennialism since its inception in the 1800s. However "leaky" he may or may not have been, JMac was a classic Dispensational Premillennialist in many, many ways. Failed prognostication and redefining scriptural terms are just two examples.

 

[Arial]

He not only did not agree with it but has a video (which I will not post) vehemently opposing CT hermeneutic. Saying that if some of the promises in the OT made to Isreal were fulfilled literally, then all of them must be.

That statement alone is rife with fallacies: Hasty generalization, implicit false dilemma, composition fallacy.

And MacArthur is not consistent with that hermeneutic himself. For example, his reason for promoting the reinstatement of the sacrifices during the literal thousand-year reign of Christ is mainly Ez 40-48, especially 18-27. In his study notes, even though the passages are explicitly calling those sacrifices sin offerings, he says they are not sin offerings and invents something nowhere in the passages; they are memorial offerings.

Correction to the above post. I misquoted MacArthur from memory. I came across his actual words today so lets see if they are any more valid.

It comes from a conversation at an IFCA meeting.





" But I do believe – and the major dispensational issue for today is, I believe with all my heart and soul that you cannot come up with a covenant view of theology and maintain any kind of coherent hermeneutics. If you come up with covenant theology, which assumes then that the church is the new Israel and all the promised blessings to Israel are now fulfilled in the church, if you come up with that view, you have violated the basic premise of biblical interpretation. Because what you have said is this, all of the curses of the Old Testament were on Israel, were fulfilled literally. Is that not true? Nobody argues that. It’s a question I ask every covenant theologian, amillennialist I ever meet and we have a discussion. You tell me, were the curses promised to Israel for their sin fulfilled literally? They all say the same, “Yes.” Then answer this. The promises given by the prophets in the same breath, you’re telling me are all to be fulfilled figuratively? That is an impossible hermeneutic. That is a divided hermeneutic. You can’t have it both ways. They are either all literal or they’re all figurative, but not one or the other. So I believe that you literally confound the Scripture."

I ran that through ChatGPT and in the next post I will present what it had to say.

 

[Arial]

MacArthur's claim in post 61 abut CT, run through ChatGPT analysis.


The statement from John MacArthur raises a serious hermeneutical argument, but as framed it has several logical and interpretive weaknesses. It is rhetorically strong, yet it oversimplifies how covenant theologians actually interpret prophecy. Below is a careful evaluation.

---

1. The argument creates a false dilemma​

MacArthur’s central claim is:

“They are either all literal or they’re all figurative.”

This presents only two options, but biblical interpretation historically recognizes more than two modes of fulfillment, including:

• literal fulfillment
• typological fulfillment
• symbolic/apocalyptic imagery
• prophetic escalation or expansion

For example:

• Book of Hosea 11:1 refers to Israel leaving Egypt.
• Gospel of Matthew 2:15 applies it typologically to Christ.

That is neither purely literal nor purely figurative—it is typological fulfillment.
Therefore the “all literal vs. all figurative” framework is too restrictive.

---

2. It assumes covenant theology treats promises as merely figurative​

MacArthur characterizes covenant theology as saying Israel’s promises are fulfilled figuratively in the church.

But most covenant theologians actually argue something different:

They believe the promises are fulfilled literally in Christ, and the church participates because it is united to Christ.

Examples often cited:

• Epistle to the Galatians 3:16 — the promises were made ultimately to Christ.
• Epistle to the Galatians 3:29 — those in Christ become Abraham’s offspring.

Thus the covenant view is not simply figurative reinterpretation but Christological fulfillment.

---

3. Scripture itself does not apply a uniform literalism​

The New Testament frequently applies Old Testament promises in expanded or transformed ways.

Examples:

Land promise​

The land promise to Abraham expands to the whole world:

• Epistle to the Romans 4:13
  
  

  “heir of the world.”

Temple promise​

Temple imagery becomes Christ and the church:

• Gospel of John 2:19–21
• First Epistle to the Corinthians 3:16

Thus the New Testament sometimes reinterprets or universalizes Old Testament categories.

---

4. The curses vs. promises comparison is not symmetrical​

MacArthur argues:

• curses → literal
• promises → must also be literal.

But the two types of prophecy function differently.

Covenant curses typically involve historical judgments (exile, invasion, destruction), which naturally occur in literal historical events.

Promises, however, often contain messianic and eschatological imagery, which the New Testament interprets through Christ.

So the categories are not perfectly parallel.

---

5. Covenant theology does not claim a “divided hermeneutic”​

Covenant theologians argue their hermeneutic is actually consistent:

Interpret the Old Testament through the interpretive lens of the New Testament.

Key example:

• Second Epistle to the Corinthians 1:20
  
  

  “All the promises of God find their Yes in him [Christ].”

Thus they argue that Christ determines the final meaning of prophecy.

---

Balanced conclusion​

MacArthur’s critique:

• correctly highlights the importance of hermeneutical consistency
• raises a legitimate question about how prophecy should be interpreted.

However, the argument as stated relies on:

1. False dilemma (all literal vs all figurative)
2. Oversimplification of covenant theology
3. Ignoring typological fulfillment used by the New Testament

Thus the claim that covenant theology necessarily produces “an impossible hermeneutic” is not logically demonstrated by the argument itself.

 

[JesusFan]

MacArthur's claim in post 61 abut CT, run through ChatGPT analysis.


The statement from John MacArthur raises a serious hermeneutical argument, but as framed it has several logical and interpretive weaknesses. It is rhetorically strong, yet it oversimplifies how covenant theologians actually interpret prophecy. Below is a careful evaluation.

---

1. The argument creates a false dilemma​

MacArthur’s central claim is:


This presents only two options, but biblical interpretation historically recognizes more than two modes of fulfillment, including:

• literal fulfillment
• typological fulfillment
• symbolic/apocalyptic imagery
• prophetic escalation or expansion

For example:

• Book of Hosea 11:1 refers to Israel leaving Egypt.
• Gospel of Matthew 2:15 applies it typologically to Christ.

That is neither purely literal nor purely figurative—it is typological fulfillment.
Therefore the “all literal vs. all figurative” framework is too restrictive.

---

2. It assumes covenant theology treats promises as merely figurative​

MacArthur characterizes covenant theology as saying Israel’s promises are fulfilled figuratively in the church.

But most covenant theologians actually argue something different:

They believe the promises are fulfilled literally in Christ, and the church participates because it is united to Christ.

Examples often cited:

• Epistle to the Galatians 3:16 — the promises were made ultimately to Christ.
• Epistle to the Galatians 3:29 — those in Christ become Abraham’s offspring.

Thus the covenant view is not simply figurative reinterpretation but Christological fulfillment.

---

3. Scripture itself does not apply a uniform literalism​

The New Testament frequently applies Old Testament promises in expanded or transformed ways.

Examples:

Land promise​

The land promise to Abraham expands to the whole world:

• Epistle to the Romans 4:13
  

Temple promise​

Temple imagery becomes Christ and the church:

• Gospel of John 2:19–21
• First Epistle to the Corinthians 3:16

Thus the New Testament sometimes reinterprets or universalizes Old Testament categories.

---

4. The curses vs. promises comparison is not symmetrical​

MacArthur argues:

• curses → literal
• promises → must also be literal.

But the two types of prophecy function differently.

Covenant curses typically involve historical judgments (exile, invasion, destruction), which naturally occur in literal historical events.

Promises, however, often contain messianic and eschatological imagery, which the New Testament interprets through Christ.

So the categories are not perfectly parallel.

---

5. Covenant theology does not claim a “divided hermeneutic”​

Covenant theologians argue their hermeneutic is actually consistent:

Interpret the Old Testament through the interpretive lens of the New Testament.

Key example:

• Second Epistle to the Corinthians 1:20
  

Thus they argue that Christ determines the final meaning of prophecy.

---

Balanced conclusion​

MacArthur’s critique:

• correctly highlights the importance of hermeneutical consistency
• raises a legitimate question about how prophecy should be interpreted.

However, the argument as stated relies on:

1. False dilemma (all literal vs all figurative)
2. Oversimplification of covenant theology
3. Ignoring typological fulfillment used by the New Testament

Thus the claim that covenant theology necessarily produces “an impossible hermeneutic” is not logically demonstrated by the argument itself.

Would say that at times Covenant theology has too far spiritualized/allegorized OT Prophecies, same fashion Dispy at times went to literal with prophecy.
Examples would be to say that God forever done dealing with the Jews and Israel period, or to say that Israel and the jewish people still have an active and saving Covenant would be examples of 2 extremes

 

[Arial]

Would say that at times Covenant theology has too far spiritualized/allegorized OT Prophecies, same fashion Dispy at times went to literal with prophecy.
Examples would be to say that God forever done dealing with the Jews and Israel period, or to say that Israel and the jewish people still have an active and saving Covenant would be examples of 2 extremes

Covenant theology does not say God is forever done dealing with the Jews and Israel. What it says (or at least my view of it) is that the Old Covenant with the descendants of Abraham and Jacob, and what became the nation Israel was a progression of the one redemption. (And I say became the nation of Israel because it was not a nation until a rebellious population demanded to be a nation with a king like all the pagan nations around them. Prior to that Israel referred to a people, not a nation.) The covenant relationship God established with that people was a shadow of what was to come. It led the way to Christ and him crucified. And a New Covenant not of works but faith alone. A life-giving covenant.

The land means nothing other than that was where God chose to dwell with his people at the time. Possessing the land was always conditional on covenant obedience. So, when MacArthur says CT teaches that the church is the new Israel he sees Israel as the land. CT sees Israel as a people---the people of God in every nation. CT does not teach that the church is the new Israel. It teaches that the church, those in Christ, are true Israel, faithful Israel because Jesus is faithful Israel and they are in him. The redeemed, just as the descendants of Jacob were redeemed from bondage in Egypt.

Stages of one redemption.