Spurgeon Says that MacArthur Gets Israel Wrong

Well, since I've waded into the whole "calvinists should be premillennialists" thing let's just go swimming in the deep end. 

I hope you will take me at my word when I say that the title of this post is meant to be a tad snarky, but not necessarily mean spirited.  As I have mentioned before John MacArthur has been very helpful in my Christian life, but I think he went off the rails with this "calvinists should be premillennialists" thing.  Since he was very forthright in calling out his opponents I do the same, but hopefully in a way that is constructive.

And, I have enjoyed the interaction I have had in the blogosphere with Phil Johnson and the Pyros, and Phil is famous for giving us all a weekly dose of Spurgeon.  This week was no different and this week's dose of Spurgeon was given to substantiate MacArthur's claim that calvinists should be premillennialists. I'll concede that point to a point, as long as Phil and others are willing to concede that, though Spurgeon may have been premil to a degree, he was definitely not dispensational premil.  As Dennis Swanson of the Master's Seminary points out: 

While Iain Murray thought Spurgeon had a "fundamental uncertainty in his mind" regarding eschatology a careful examination of his sermons, his two commentaries (The Treasury of David and Matthew: The Gospel of the Kingdom) and his other writings reveal that he consistently and clearly not only affirmed a historic or covenantal premillennial position; he also rejected the salient tenets of the amillennial, postmillennial and dispensational (italics mine) premillennial schemes.

Having conceded that, since Phil offered a dose of Spurgeon in support of MacArthur's position I want to offer my own little dose of Spurgeon in contradiction to a very important position of MacArthur's.  In Tim Challies summary of that first message he reports MacArthur saying something along these lines:

The central argument went like this: If you get Israel right, you will get eschatology right. If you don't get Israel right, you will never get eschatology right and you'll drift forever from view-to-view.

So, let's see what Spurgeon says about Israel and the church.  Here's my own "whenever I feel like it dose of Spurgeon," courtesy of Dennis Swanson at the Masters Seminary and currently posted at the internet's finest Spurgeon site, run by Phil Johnson:

Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ so not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. These who saw Christ's day before it came, had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body. Israel in the covenant of grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages. Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way—they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall.

And, Swanson summarizes things this way:

On the central feature of Dispensational Premillennialism, Spurgeon does not hold to the distinction of Israel and the Church that would be common to a "classic dispensational" approach.

The bottom line is that Spurgeon is not canonical so neither MacArthur, nor Phil, nor the Master's Seminary folks, nor the amils who are opposed to their eschatologies are obligated to follow Spurgeon.

But if we are to bring Spurgeon in as a witness on the eschatology issue we have to say that his view of Israel and the church is the same as that of the amil, and is directly opposed to the dispensational premil view.  Further, this is going to push his version of premillennialism in the direction of historical premillennialism, probably closer to George Eldon Ladd and others like him than to the Master's Seminary's eschatology.

And, using MacArthur's standard, we must conclude that Spurgeon gets his eschatology wrong, or if we lean on Spurgeon we must say that MacArthur is the one who gets it wrong.  Actually, I hate to speculate what a figure from the past would believe if he were here today, but I doubt Spurgeon would be throwing down the kind of gauntlets that say "get this piece of the eschatological pie wrong and you get everything else wrong."

 

Related Tags: Religion, Theology, Church, Christian, Christianity, Eschatology, Premillennial, Premmillennialism, Amillennial, Amillennialism

Comments

[cavman]

Here's a little Spurgeon:
“We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement” (Vol. 15, 8).

shameless plug for my post on this- http://cavman.wordpress.com/2006/11/18/spurgeon-on-dispenationalism/

[Kurt]

Ah, the danger of quoting our own pet theologians! They sometimes return to nip our propositions. I think that was much of the weakness of MacArthur's form of argument: leaning heavily on what differing people think, and propping them up when the issues are made clear by Scripture. I'm not saying John's message was lacking scripture, but I almost gagged when I heard that John Calvin would have been pre-mil.

Of greater concern to me then the eschatological issues being bounced around the blogosphere is my wondering where individuals are at in Christ. Are they communing with God? Maybe I'm crazy, but I can't wrap my head around how you come out to preach to ministers and pastors and you choose the subject matter that he did. I must be way too simplistic!

[Adrian Warnock]

Nice one David!

Couldnt resist getting in on the act - and in so doing called you the "sleeping giant of the blogosphere" ...enjoy: Spurgeon and Millenial Mud-slining

[Rey]

Where do I get his John's sermon? Apparently everyone in the blogosphere went to the conference but me—I just want to hear what the man said!

[Annette Harrison]

David . . .

So as not to get into hot water with my boss, the link in Adrian's comment is broken and is corrected here:

Spurgeon and Millennial Mud-Slinging

Thanks much!
Annette Harrison
Editor to Adrian Warnock

[David Wayne]

Cavman - plug away.

Kurt - oh man, we must not be simplistic now, must we??

Adrian - I'm still mad at you for not naming your son after me! Kidding, thanks for calling me a sleeping giant - I'll probably go back to snooze land after all of this passes.

Rey - check out the audio from the Shepherd's conference.

Annette - if Adrian gets on your case send him to me!

[Rey]

I hope iTunes has it for 99 cents since Shepherds is charging 2 bucks for it!

[David Cho]

Congratulations to Dr. MacArthur for successfully diverting Mr. David Wayne's attention away from the NCAA Tournament even though Florida has a great chance to be only the second school to repeat the Championship since John Wooden's retirement. I think Dr. MacArthur is a UCLA fan himself. Makes a lot of sense :)

Would love a UCLA - Florida rematch in the Final Four, David.

[Richard Eric Gunby]

I have two quotes of Spurgeon that, for the life of me, I just can't seem to read them and think,"premil." In fact, I can't help but read, "post-mil."

NUMBER 1.
"David was not a believer in the theory that the world will grow worse and worse, and that the dispensation will wind up with general darkness and idolatry. Earth's sun is to go down amid tenfold night if some of our prophetic brethren are to be believed. Not so do we expect, but we look for a day when the dwellers in all lands shall learn righteousness, shall trust in the Savior, shall worship thee alone, O God, and "shall glorify thy name." The modern notion has greatly damped the zeal of the church for missions, and the sooner it is shown to be un-Scriptural the better for the cause of God. It neither consorts with prophecy, honours God, nor inspires the church with ardour. Far hence be it driven." --CHARLES SPURGEON

NUMBER 2.
"It would be easy to show that at our present rate of progress the kingdoms of this world never could become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. Indeed, many in the Church are giving up the idea of it except on the occasion of the advent of Christ, which, as it chimes in with our own idleness, is likely to be a popular doctrine. I myself believe that King Jesus will reign, and the idols be utterly abolished; but I expect the same power which turned the world upside down once will still continue to do it. The Holy Ghost would never suffer the imputation to rest upon His holy name that He was not able to convert the world."
C. H. SPURGEON

-Eric