The Mocked Shepherd

I am glad I didn't pay $300 to be mocked, for that is exactly what Dr. MacArthur did to us who are not premillennial. Now everyone knows that I love and respect Dr. MacArthur. A simple Fide-O search will reveal numerous references to my praises of this man and his incredible impact on the Church. But during the first session today, Dr. MacArthur preached a sermon entitled, "Sovereign Election, Israel and Eschatology."

MacArthur began by misrepresenting the true definition of Amillenialism. For example, his first tactic in this speech was to bias his hearers against Amillenialism by equating Amillenialist with Theistic Evolutionist, claiming that they both change interpretive rules. Besides making a false comparison with this tactic, he fails to mention that a whole new hermeneutic was formulated in order for premillenialism to come into existence in recent church history.

Dr. MacArthur continues his tactic of re-defining Amillenialism as he claimed that Amil asserts that the Kingdom as prophesied in the Old Testament will not exist. Now, friends, this is just not true in any way, shape, or form. Indeed, the entirety of the Amil position is that the OT kingdom DOES exists exactly as prophesied. Dr. MacArthur literally redefined Amil by claiming that it asserts the opposite of what it actually asserts. I have to believe that he knows that this definition was false being a man of such scholarly stature. So I am puzzled by his reason for using this tactic.

Then, Dr. MacArthur claimed that Amil denies elect Israel. He said, "This is strange." What is really strange is that he made such a false claim against Amil. But he not only made this false charge -- it was the heart of his speech. The whole purpose of this sermon, as stated by Dr. MacArthur, was to try to assert that Amil denies the doctrine of sovereign election. He even added, "Every self-respecting Calvinist should be a premillenialist!" He continued with more false comparisons saying, "Amil should be left for Arminians because they believe God elects no one and preserves no one. Open Theists should be Amil... Charismatics should be Amil because they go in and out of salvation willy nilly... For those of us who get it-- that God is sovereign... Amil makes no sense because they believe Israel forfeited their promises."

At this point I realize that what I just heard was the grandest stawman burning I had ever witnessed!

Dr. MacArthur continued by delving into the hermeneutic arguments promoted by Dr. Robert Thomas. He used such catch phrases as the "normal hermeneutic" or the "plain meaning" hermeneutic of dispensationalist/premil as opposed to the "doesn't mean what it says" hermeneutic of Amil. Yeah, sure that is exactly what I believe -- the Bible doesn't mean what it says... Come on. Talk about biasing the argument. Talk about labeling your opponent in the worse possible light even though the label is completely false. I don't interpret the Bible apart from the Bible's interpretation of itself. The Amil position is that the kingdom was established exactly as the Apostles (and the prophet John the Baptist and Jesus himself) plainly declared with their use of the normal language.

But I don't have time to write right now on this issue because the next part of Dr. MacArthur speech was the most outrageous thing I have ever heard from a preacher in many years. Dr. MacArthur claimed there is such a thing as "Jewish DNA." I could not believe that he said it. I see DNA scientist researching the genetic content contained in a haploid set of chromosomes and saying, "Hey look there is a Jew chromosome or their is the chromosome that makes someone an Commanche Indian." Really, I knew that the premil camp was hurting because of the rise of Reformed Theology, but I didn't expect such desperate measures to be taken. Speaking of Theistic Evolutionist, there is nothing worse than a sermon filled with poor theology and poor science.

Yet, it didn't stop here. MacArthur then admitted that John Calvin, among nearly all others of the reformed faith, would not agree with MacArthur. But then he claimed that if Calvin were here today he would be premil. He also quoted Jonathan Edwards and then asked sarcastically, "Where did he get that?!" And towards the end of the speech, Dr. MacArthur said that Augustine is responsible for the Dark Ages and Amil theology is responsible for the errors of Roman Catholicism.

The middle of the speech contained four questions: Is the OT amil, were the Jews in Jesus' day amil, was Jesus amil, and were the apostles amil? Beginning with these question Dr. MacArthur primarily referred to Amil as "Replacement Theology." He read Scriptures and defended his dispensational/premil interpretation of them. Dr. MacArthur's diatribe at this point became very inconsistent since he actually began to deal with Scriptures.

His exegesis was noticeably biased and at times completely off base. For example, he said that Jesus' answer to the apostles question in Acts 1:6 was "NO." Excuse me, but that is not in the text. I think Dr. Thomas might call this "fictional eisogesis." Or upon reading Acts 15:14-16 MacArthur said that that is proof that God will build a tabernacle after the age of the Gentiles, but the context is clear that Peter was speaking of God's current activities. In other words, Peter was declaring in those verses that the words of the prophets were being fulfilled. But then in the most incredible moment of hermenuetical inconsistency, MacArthur quoted Romans 11:26, "And so all Israel will be saved." "What does Israel mean?" exclaimed MacArthur. "It means Israel!." Yes, we Amillers would agree... but the real question is what does "all" mean? If MacArthur remains consistent then he has to believe that "all means all!" -- that all ethnic Jews will be saved. But, of course, he doesn't believe that, so he interprets "all" one way AND THE VERY NEXT WORD, "Israel" a completely different way! Talk about inconsistent interpretive principles!

But the clincher for me was his last illustration when he claimed that an Amiller will be unsuccessful in witnessing to Jews because Jews are wanting their land and wealth and physical blessings -- and only dispy/premilers can promise them that. So, let me get this straight, if I can't appeal to the selfish desires, the materialism of Jews then I can't get them saved. I've got two problems with that: (1) I don't view Jews as being so materialistic, (2) I thought this speech was to protect the doctrine of sovereign election?

As an amillenarian I believe that the hope of salvation for Jews and Gentiles is Jesus alone! He is the sum and substance of the promises! Who needs land? We have Him! Nation? We are a called nation, a holy priesthood -- and most importantly we are the children of God! And if you are Christ's, said Paul, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs to promise! That is plain enough for me!

In the end, I came away from this speech with one overall thought. I figured the most competent man, a man that has my utmost respect, gave it his all to try to convince me of premillenialism. And not only did he not make one valid theological or biblical point, his tactics revealed to me that premillenialism is in dire straights. I am confident that I will never hear a more passionate and comprehensive defense of premillenialism -- and I am even more convinced of amillenialism! I continue to love and respect Dr. MacArthur, and I hope to continue to have the blessings of learning from him. This was just one of the strangest ways to learn.