Phil Johnson comments on the MacArthur flap

OK, Phil Johnson makes some good points in the first part of this comment regarding the recent MacArthur flap. He's not obligated to make his employer the focus of criticism on his blog. (Well, considering his employer is a teacher of biblical doctrine that may make Johnson's position problematic as a Christian, but...still. I'll give him those general preliminary points.)

Then, he states he will now comment on the flap itself. Here is his comment:

Now, here's my comment:

John MacArthur's premillennialism is not an opinion he developed recently or kept secret until this year's Shepherds' Conference.

John has always been a premillennialist, holding to a pretribulational rapture. It's not a view he recently adopted in secret and suddenly unveiled. It's what he has always taught, and those self-styled experts in the realm of eschatology who seem most shocked and outraged today surely ought to have been aware of where he stood. He has written several books and a couple of commentaries outlining his perspective on eschatology.

Not a good start. This is the equivalent of Phil the running back scrambling quickly out-of-bounds when the nearest player of the opposing team is twenty-yards away from him. Where are you going, Phil?

What caused the buzz in MacArthur's statements was their being made in the context of a rather big movement of Christians awakening to sound biblical doctrine defined as Reformed - covenant, Federal - and, in terms of end times doctrine, amillennial (and not necessarily of the paedo/sacerdotal variety!). MacArthur's statements sounded desperate and overstated. They had the sound of a guy - and a movement - jumping the shark, as they say (and as has been said).

Various eschatalogical hobbyists, cranks, and fanatics representing practically every other conceivable point of view have tried from time to time to persuade John MacArthur that their view is the correct one. Evangelists for diverse points of view have ranged from the relatively new "pre-wrath" position of Marv Rosenthal to Gary North's doomsday-flavored postmillennialism to Harold Camping's unique date-setting, escapist brand of amillennialism to the most fanatical hyper-preterists. But John's opinion on this matter hasn't really wavered at all since the start of his ministry.

Yes, end times doctrine is a confusing hall of mirrors with clowns and distortions and what not, but the fact is: on-the-mark biblical doctrine exists regarding eschatology. Your litany carefully avoids the sound influences and voices and even manages to associate amillennialism with "date-setting" and Harold Camping. Venema, Hoekema, Vos, Berkhof, Calvin - etc. - are conspicuously missing from your list. No, these aren't just writers, but they represent the sound biblical doctrine Christians have been awakening to regarding eschatology. Sound biblical doctrinal understanding is conspicuously missing from your list. It exists, Phil. You just have to come into it. To do that you have to humble yourself first and make yourself capable of coming into it.

Moreover, in all the years I have known John MacArthur, he has never pretended to be "Reformed" in the technical sense of the word. He does say that his perspective on soteriology is essentially Reformed and Calvinistic, because that's a fact. He might even say he thinks many who call themselves capital-R "Reformed" aren't (small-r) reformed enough in some of their opinions.

But, despite the persistent caricature frequently batted around the dark side of the blogosphere, neither he nor I have any wish to coopt the capital-R label "Reformed" in the sense of "Truly Reformed." Nor have we ever claimed that we own the legitimate copyright to the R-label. In fact, to whatever degree the epithet "Reformed" reflects the attitudes and opinions of certain overzealous sacramentalists and puerile "Reformed Catholics," we have every wish to repudiate it as forcefully and explicitly as possible.

No, MacArthur just stated that any "self-respecting Calvinist" is premillennial, dispensational, and rapture doctrine soaked. (I think Phil knows that when the name Calvin is invoked the very heart of the meaning of the term "Reformed" is being invoked as well.)

So for the record, when you hear some of the same people who profess to hate the "Truly Reformed" mentality now breathlessly intoning the verdict that John MacArthur is not "Truly Reformed"—as if they have finally exposed a dark, secret heresy worthy of a major headline at all the "TR watchblogs"—just bear in mind that I have been insisting I'm not "TR" ever since I was first tagged with that moniker. And it should be no surprise to anyone who is moderately sober that the pastor of the church I attend isn't "TR" either.

See above. No, Phil, nobody considered John MacArthur as 'truly Reformed', not prior or after his latest pronouncements. That's not why he's attracting attention regarding this current flap. It's because he claimed Calvin would agree with his historically novel and biblically juvenile millennialism; and he did it while presenting a ridiculously straw man definition of that which he feels threatens him and his books and institutions the most: amillenialism; and he did it in an emotional manner and at an event and in a context of recent history that suggests a road marker has been reached.