Was MacArthur a dispensationalist?

[TMSO]

@JesusFan
Romans 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved;

O Robertson, in his book, "The Israel of God," asks this question.
What does Paul mean by "all Israel?"

1) All Israel refers to all ethnic descendants of Abraham.
2) "all Israel" refers to all ethnic descendants of Abraham living at a future time at which God shall initiate a special working among the Jews.
3) "all Israel" refers to the "mass" or "majority" of Jews living at the time of a special saving activity of God in the future.
4) "all Israel" refers to all the elect Israelites within the community of Israel.
5) "all Israel" refers both to Jews and gentiles which together constitute the church of Christ, the Israel of God.


What does everyone choose, 1-5?

Since the church is not the Israel of God, Israel is 4. the elect Israelites within the nation of Israel. Didn't Paul already say that not all who are of Israel are Israel? Only those who are not simply circumcised in the flesh, but those who are also circumcised of the heart. The first only makes you a physical descendant of Abraham, while having both makes you both a physical and spiritual descendant of Abraham which means they are of Israel and are Israel. Jews under the Abrahamic covenant, who are also partakers of the promise to Abraham by faith.

 

[Carbon]

Please go with what John MacArthur actually stated himself. He was asked point blank in a questions and answers session whether he was a dispensationalist or not. He basically said no, but that he considers himself a leaky dispensationalist. So, not at all a firm proponent. The two systems are not completely incompatible. That is not to say there aren't extreme differences that cannot be reconciled without a lot of work. However, there are some differences that seem to based on a lack of critical thought. This is where you have one side saying the other side believes this, and the other side comes right out and says that isn't true. The exercise of critical thought processes would quickly resolve this.

Yes, he calls himself a leaky dipsy. And he tries not to present his teaching as dispensational, but they are. He even stated that Calvinists are dipsys. As a matter of fact, he said any self-respecting Calvinist is a premillennial dispensationalist.
He claims Amillennialism is essentially Arminian in its view of election. But I believe most Calvinists know that to be false.

 

[Arial]

God will deal with the nation of Israel. There is A LOT of prophecy in the Old Testament that attests to that. And then Paul basically cries out about it from the depth of emotion as he himself was a Jew. He talks about God's final dealing with Israel, and Israel's salvation as being like life from the dead. It will be that stark a comparison between Israel prior to God's final dealings, and Israel after God's final dealings.

. All it takes is a little critical thinking

It also takes a lot of critical thinking when one is reading the Bible---not just skimming and arriving at an opinion. What is Paul saying in Romans 4? Also considering it in conjunction with 1-3.


9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Possession of the land was always conditional and Israel broke that covenant. It was always temporary and was serving God's purpose for it and that purpose was and has been served.

 

[Carbon]

Carbon said:
I know some Dispensationalists claim that because there has been a partial hardening that happened to Israel, we Amillennialists claim the church as a replacement, but Amils did not come up with that; that's a strawman from the Dispensationalists. But this hardening is speaking of the non-elect Jews rejecting Jesus; it never speaks of the elect Jews.

That is NOT what the hardening is speaking of.

I'm looking forward to your opinion and thoughts on this.

You should read the passage again:

Alright.

"13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 if by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Here is the framing of the logical argument:
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Okay, . . .

And now the important part:

Oh yes, the important part. . .

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?"

And then comes your verse:

Make note of the first word... FOR. That word means that what follows is connected to what came before. So Paul tells the Gentiles the mystery, that God will reattach the Jews, the cut off branches, to the tree when they go from unbelief to belief. That is the mystery that Paul wants the Gentiles not to be ignorant of. Hence his whole bit on not being wise in your own estimation, as you seem to be exercising wisdom in your own estimation.

Paul says that the unbelief which is visualized in the partial blindness/hardening of Israel in that, while seeing the truth, the aren't "seeing the truth", thus lost in unbelieve, this condition will only remain until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. Once the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, this blindness/hardeness that represents the unbelief of the Jews, will be lifted, and they will believe. As such, they will be reattached to the tree. This is what Paul is saying above.

So the argument has the premise of Jews cut off from the tree for disbelief (not all of these branches are cut off, just those in unbelief), these Jews who are cut off are under partial blindness/hardness UNTIL (so this partial blindness/hardness will end) the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. When the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, the unbelief visualized by the partial blindness/hardness will be removed and the branches will be reattached to the tree.

Understand, I believe that it is the end of the age, and all the destruction at the end of Daniel 9 happens at the end of the times of the Gentiles as visualized by the Messianic Kingdom coming in at the end of Daniel 2. So only the 1/3rd of Israel mentioned by Zechariah, those who will be saved in the end, are alive when the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, and the times of the Gentiles comes to an end. So, only the elect remnant of Israel will still be alive, and they all shall be saved.

Actually, even in what you posted, it says "and so" all Israel will be saved. That is a statement of conclusion. That is a statement of finality. That is a statement that comes at the end oof the timeline, so it is at the end of the age. There is NOTHING in the passage that gives any idea that Paul is looking at the whole gospel age. Paul is speaking of finality when he says AND SO all Israel will be saved.

Thanks for the lesson in dispensationalism.

" 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. "

God is being specific in HIs prophecy, as written here by Paul. God is clear He is speaking solely of Israel, and even mentions a covenant, of which only Jews have covenants. This covenatn is with the Jews, and speaks specifically of the Jews. I don't believe Paul is saying only Jews are saved. He is again defining the argument he made, showing that when he says all Israel will be saved, that that is exactly what he means. Specifically Israel, and specifically at that time, the end of the age. He further defines by saying:

" 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

Israel rejected the Messiah, but God had purpose for it. They are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles. When they rejected, God sent the gospel to the Gentiles, thus the Gentiles profitted when Israel rejected the Messiah. As such, the rejection of Israel was the profit of the whole world, as Paul said earlier. However, Israel was the elect nation of God, so they are beloved of God. Why? Because God chose them? No. See the word FOR in 29? What is written there is affects the previous. God's gifts and calling were to the forefathers, so God considers Israel beloved for the sake of the forefathers. Hence God did not reject Israel when Israel rejected God. Verse 30 wraps it up. The Gentiles did not believe God, but received mercy because Israel rejected in unbelief, and solely because Israel rejected in unbelief. Israel became like the Gentiles in unbelief, that in the Gentiles belief and the mercy they received, Israel may obtain mercy, which means, Israel will turn and believe. For God has concluded them all in unbelief (Jews and Gentiles), that he might have mercy upon all (Jews and Gentiles.)

Why do you believe God will not have mercy on Israel?

First, you believe as you like, I will not debate everything you say; I will just reply with some truth and expose some dispensationalism for what it is. I have come to see context can be very difficult for some people.

Romans 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

To Paul's question, "Has God rejected His people" Dipsy's believe this implies a future restoration of national Israel. So, the question is assumed to mean, "God has not rejected Israel with regard to His special plan for their future, has He?"

 

[Carbon]

First, you believe as you like, I will not debate everything you say; I will just reply with some truth and expose some dispensationalism for what it is. I have come to see context can be very difficult for some people.

Romans 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

To Paul's question, "Has God rejected His people" Dipsy's believe this implies a future restoration of national Israel. So, the question is assumed to mean, "God has not rejected Israel with regard to His special plan for their future, has He?"

@TMSO

To Paul's question, "Has God rejected His people" Dipsy's believe this implies a future restoration of national Israel. So, the question is assumed to mean, "God has not rejected Israel with regard to His special plan for their future, has He?"

Once this meaning is assumed, then Paul's response, "may it never be!" is seen as affirming that God has a special plan for Israel's future.

But, as we stay in the context of this question, we will see it in a completely different way.

 

[Carbon]

@TMSO

Once this meaning is assumed, then Paul's response, "may it never be!" is seen as affirming that God has a special plan for Israel's future.

But, as we stay in the context of this question, we will see it in a completely different way.

As we keep in context, we will see there is no reference to a supposed future restoration of the nation of Israel.

Paul's question does not mean, "has God cast off His people finally?" It actually means, "Has God cast off His people completely?"

In other words, considering Romans 11:11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
So, in light of their heinous sin of crucifying the Lord Jesus, Paul is asking, "Is there any hope for them at all?" Have they stumbled to completely fall?

Can't you see that Paul's answer is not about the future of Israel? But it's about their present situation.

In 11:1, Paul says, "I too am an Israelite." In 11:5, Paul says, "even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

So, can you see that Paul's answer to this question is not that God has a glorious future in store for the nation of Israel, but rather, he answers that God has an elect remnant right now in the nation of Israel.

There is no hint of a future, national conversion of Israel in Romans 11:1 or anywhere else.

 

[Carbon]

@TMSO
I realize that Romans 11:12 and 15, to dipsy's, refer to a distinctive future for ethnic Israel also.
But it does not.
12 Now if their wrongdoing proves to be riches for the world, and their failure, riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! 15 For if their rejection proves to be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Those who understand verses 12 &15 to refer to a future conversion of Israel as a nation assume the transgression, failure, and rejection of the Jews coincides with the present, gospel age, while their fulfillment and acceptance relate to the future period of their national conversion.
But this assumption is unnecessary because both can be viewed as taking place during the present gospel age.

O Palmer Robertson says in his book:
The Jews reject their Messiah; the Gentiles believe; the Jews are provoked by jealousy and return in faith; the world receives even richer blessings as consequence of this return of the Jews. . . . . This temporal sequence may be viewed as having fulfillment in the present era of gospel proclamation.


This alternative view understanding of the fulfillment and acceptance of Israel is confirmed by Romans 11:13-14.
13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Therefore insofar as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry
14 if somehow I may move my own people to jealousy and save some of them.

Now, @TMSO, I know you made statements like these, and others . . .

That is NOT what the hardening is speaking of. You should read the passage again:
Here is the framing of the logical argument:
And now the important part:
Make note of the first word... FOR.

But I hope you can see things a little differently now?

 

[Carbon]

Since the church is not the Israel of God, Israel is 4. the elect Israelites within the nation of Israel. Didn't Paul already say that not all who are of Israel are Israel? Only those who are not simply circumcised in the flesh, but those who are also circumcised of the heart. The first only makes you a physical descendant of Abraham, while having both makes you both a physical and spiritual descendant of Abraham which means they are of Israel and are Israel. Jews under the Abrahamic covenant, who are also partakers of the promise to Abraham by faith.

Since you mention the Israel of God, let's have another look at who the Israel of God is. First thing that must be pointed out is that the only people who have the authority to say who that is in the Apostles. Not the dipsy's.

Here is what Paul teaches about who is included and who is not. And, Paul makes it plain that external circumcision does not make one a Jew. Romans 2:28-29

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

So my friend, according to this Hebrew of the Hebrews, who was commissioned by God Himself as an apostle to the Gentiles, Abraham is equally the "father" of two communities. Abraham is the father of believing Jews, and he is equally the father of all uncircumcized believers. Romans 4:11-12
and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Respectfully, @TMSO mayby you should read the passages again?

 

[Arial]

Please go with what John MacArthur actually stated himself. He was asked point blank in a questions and answers session whether he was a dispensationalist or not. He basically said no, but that he considers himself a leaky dispensationalist.

MacArthur explicitly calling himself a dispensationalist:

“I am a dispensationalist because dispensationalism generally understands and applies Scripture—particularly prophetic Scripture—in a way that is more consistent with the normal, literal approach I believe is God’s design for interpreting Scripture.”

This quote is cited from his book Faith Works (appendix discussing dispensationalism).

MacArthur identifying himself as a historical dispensationalist:

“I just want you to know that I am a historical dispensationalist, pretribulational, premillennialist.”

He is a "leaky dispensationalist" only in his not adhering to the Schofield method of repeated tests of humanity in different ages. He emphasized one plan of salvation throughout history but still divides Israel and the church as being dealt with in regard to salvation in different ways and at different times. It is basically smoke and mirrors. That the dealing with is different is clearly seen when he claims the temple will be rebuilt and the animal sacrifices reinstated.

 

[Carbon]

There is one plan. Even with over 8 1/2 billion distinct human beings alive today, each with their own path, there is still only one plan. Even with two groups, Jews and Gentiles, two groups, the nation of Israel and the church, there is still only one plan. Though the details may differ in places, there is still only one plan. All it takes is a little critical thinking to realize what is wrong with the view that if we say there are two distinct groups, that there can't be one plan that includes both. Again, consider 8 1/2 billion different lines going into one block, but only one line comes out, and that one line represents all 8 1/2 billion lines that went in. That block is one plan, and the result of that one plan. Many inputs, one output. All one has to do is figure out all that one block represents.

Wow thats a classic. This is how a dipsy wriggles out of something? Instead of having to do some critical thinking and actually some research, just say,

many inputs, one output.

Haha, that takes the cake.