In the latest issue of the Grace Evangelical Society's Grace in Focus, Grant Hawley writes an article excoriating John MacArthur as a key contributor to the decline of dispensationalism. MacArthur, it seems, is "hostile to normative dispensationalism," has "repeatedly and directly condemned many of the fundamentals of normative dispensationalism," has led "attacks on normative dispensationalism," and has "adamantly rejected many aspects of dispensationalism."
Specifically, MacArthur has criticized certain dispensationalists who deny the necessity of repentance and the embrace of Christ's lordship for salvation, and, consequently, has eschewed Keswick-type expressions of sanctification. MacArthur's attack on these "free grace" tenets, Hawley affirms, is tantamount to an attack on "normative" dispensationalism.
MacArthur is correct that the "lordship debate has had a devastating effect on dispensationalism." And it is also true that so-called "lordship" advocates have sometimes led in the condemnation of dispensationalism. But it does not follow therefrom that lordship salvation is sinking the dispensational boat. If the dispensational boat is sinking, it is because some of the occupants of that boat adhere to what MacArthur has called a "mongrel species of dispensationalism that ought to die."
And so it seems that "normative" dispensationalism is dying. Long live dispensationalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Mark Snoeberger
- After growing up in the great state of Pennsylvania, I settled down in 1994 with my new bride, Heather, in Allen Park, Michigan, and have been here at Detroit Baptist Seminary ever since (with a bit of time away for doctoral work). Since 2007 I have been privileged to be a part of the systematic theology faculty here. I love teaching, researching and writing, hunting with my two boys, and enjoying any little bit of God's unadulterated creation I can find (which means I occasionally have to get out of Detroit). But all these things matter to me only because theology matters. For it is God himself who gives all men life and breath and everything else (Acts 17:25).
5 comments:
Amen and amen!
Good to have you back in the fray.
Steve Thomas
Mark:
FWIW, the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) does not represent the broader “Free Grace” movement. The GES has become a small group of theological extremists who teach the most egregious form of reductionist soteriology that is commonly known as the “Crossless Gospel.” It was the late Zane Hodges who originated this heresy and it is perpetuated today solely by Bob Wilkin and the GES.
Please permit me one sample for your readers.
GES Reductionist Affirmation of Belief
LM
PS: Praying for your sight to full recovery.
Mark,
Thanks for reading my article in the Grace in Focus and taking the time to comment on your blog about it.
Just to clarify, however, I am not saying that MacArthur's rejection of Free Grace is equal to a rejection of Dispensationalism, but that his rejection of fundamental aspects of Dispensationalism has led to his rejection of Free Grace. This in turn has led to a wider attack on Dispensationalism.
The GIF article is part of a larger article that will appear in JOTGES this spring (which itself is the first part of a series). I hope that we can interact as brothers, seeking truth together after the series is completed. If we disagree, so be it, but let's represent each other fairly.
Lou,
My article has nothing to do with the minimum content of faith. I hope that we can rejoice in our One Lord together in the future, and hopefully before His return (Eph 4:3-6).
"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity!" Psalm 133:1
Grant,
You say that MacArthur has rejected "fundamental aspects of Dispensationalism." I'm wondering to which aspects you are referring.
Ryrie's classic sine qua non includes: (1) a distinction between Israel and the church, (2) an approach to hermeneutics called literal interpretation, and (3) the belief that the underlying purpose of God in the world is the glory of God.
MacArthur (1) makes a distinction between Israel and the church, (2) practices normal grammatical-historical interpretation, and (3) I'm not sure how MacArthur would describe the purpose of God in the world, but arguing that he is covenant in this respect because he views Christ's preaching as centered on the offer of salvation seems to be a non sequitur.
Joseph
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for your inquiry. The Grace in Focus article is part of a larger Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society article (which is the first of a series on the subject of Dispensationalism and Free Grace). The bulk of my discussion on MacArthur from the first article does appear in the Grace in Focus article. From your question, it sounds like it is possible that you haven't yet read the Grace in Focus article. In it I point out statements from Dr. MacArthur where he specifically singles out aspects of Dispensationalism that he denies. It is available at faithalone.org
It would be inappropriate for me to debate this issue on this blog, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate your question and want to encourage you to read not only the Grace in Focus article but the full series in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. I hope that in them your questions will be sufficiently answered.
Post a Comment