Isn't John MacArthur's Millenia of Animal Sacrifices a re-crucifying of Christ?

Discussion in 'Revelation & Eschatology' started by SelfSuspendedDeuteronomy2929, Apr 15, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SelfSuspendedDeuteronomy2929

    SelfSuspendedDeuteronomy2929 Puritan Board Freshman

    John MacArthur claims his literal Ezekiel Millennial theology of 1,000 years of Animal Blood Sacrifices are just a "Memorial to Christ" (see his study Bible) .. but Ezekial over & over refers to these as atoning sin offerings.

    I find his millennial theology horrifying and sickening. Jesus said "It is finished!"

    I have known Christians who adopted his eschatology only because of his charismatic personality. They loved him so much for all of his other teachings that they said whatever he believes about eschatology must be correct! Of course they were Baptist and completely unwilling to study Reformed Covenant Theology and turned to his Dispensationalism which led them into his eschatology.

    To me these this theology of 1,000 years of Animal BLOOD Sacrifices as a re-crucifying of Christ. To me it is much much worse than just theological error but possibly shy of heresy .. but definitely horrific.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2019
  2. Stephen L Smith

    Stephen L Smith Moderator

    Yes, MacArthurs view is highly problematic. MacArthurs literal approach to the Old Testament forces him to see animal sacrifices in a future millennium. But as you note Ezekial says the animal sacrifices are sin offerings, MacArthur tries to get around the problem by saying they are Memorial but he violates his own principle of literal interpretation.

    I try to be charitable to a respected bible teacher like MacArthur. He would see this more akin to the Lord's supper (a memorial) rather than a re-crucifying of Christ. Dispensationalism is a 'strange' theology but seeing the animal sacrifices as a memorial does keep his theology from dangerous error In my humble opinion.
     
  3. richardnz

    richardnz Puritan Board Freshman

    Here is Arnold Fruchtenbaum the dispensationalist struggling with the same problem:-

    "C. THE PROBLEM FOR DISPENSATIONALISTS
    For dispensationalists, the problem is not the understanding of what the text states. When taken literally, there is no confusion as to the meaning of the text, and there is unanimity among dispensationalists as to what it says and means. However, the problem for dispensationalists has been in the area of what role the Millennial Temple and sacrifices actually play in the messianic kingdom and how they do not contradict or demean the final sacrifice of the Messiah on the cross. The differing interpretations will be presented below, but perhaps one observation is in order. Do we really have to fully understand all the whys and wherefores in order to take the passage literally? Our critics claim that since we cannot justify millennial sacrifices in light of Messiah’s sacrifice, these chapters cannot be taken literally. But is such a presupposition valid?"

    He does not want to abandon his literal interpretation, but he is uncomfortable with where it is taking him. He does not want to be a heretic. He ends up by saying it is complicated and hard to understand and moves on without trying to come up with a coherent answer.
     
  4. alexandermsmith

    alexandermsmith Puritan Board Freshman

    The problem is the dispensationalism, as I'm sure everyone here will agree. These are just the knots one gets into as a result of the outworking of that doctrine.

    And the doctrine of dispensationalism is a heresy.
     
  5. SelfSuspendedDeuteronomy2929

    SelfSuspendedDeuteronomy2929 Puritan Board Freshman

    Dear Stephen,

    Please forgive me for coming on strong. My fight against John MacArthur's horrific teachings and influence upon others is a long story, and I am passionate about this, but also exhausted. I'm an old guy, and ill, so I don't have much time left fight him, but I will continue to do so until my dying breath.

    1) You say you want to be charitable and dismiss his grave error since you think his "intentions" are OK, and therefore dismissable.

    But is this how God teaches us in the Bible to address a "disease" in the body?

    And worse, John MacArthur is not just an individual Christian lone wolf with some strange ideas, which would be bad enough .. but countless Christians are listening to him, and believing him, and following him.

    And much, much worse is that he is a Pastor, Preacher, and Bible TEACHER!!!

    What does the Bible say about the accountability to God for their teachings and their responsibility to truth Coram Deo?

    This puts him in a different category regarding teaching error. And much much worse, he is a "Charismatic" public figure and teacher with a daunting influence over countless Christian who are BEGUILED by him and follow his errors lovingly like a sheep not knowing they are being led to the slaughter.

    2) what would you have done when the ecumenical councils were fighting errors? Would you have said it was OK for your dear brothers in Christ entertaining heresy because their intentions were good and because they put nice acceptable "Names & Titles" upon certain errors that were OK because they were sincere?

    3) The truth is that the 1,000 years of animal BLOOD sacrifices are the practice of continual repeated Re-Crucifying of Christ.

    That is the truth. Is a rose by any other name the same? Yes!

    Since John MacArthur knew there couldn't be 1,000 years of atoning animal blood sacrifices as in the OT, he was forced to find another explanation so that his theology could stand, and he decided if the sacrifices were memorials of thanksgiving then that would fit. BUT THIS IS A TREACHEROUS LIE. Ezekiel teaches blood sin atonement.

    John MacArthur's substantial ego deluded himself to find another explanation so that his theology could stand, and then believed his own lie, and continues to recruit converts by the droves to this re-crucification of Christ.

    3) John Mac Arthur needs to be taken down off his high powerful pedestal as a beguiler.

    For years many efforts have been made by others to get through to him.

    He is old now and will die soon, and has been given countless opportunities to repent.

    If he dies unrepentant his LEGACY will be covered by the BLOOD of animals' sin atoning sacrifices re-crucifying Christ. If Jesus doesn't return soon, over time any good thing John MacArthur did will be forgotten and drowned in animal blood sacrifices because that is how future theologians will remember him.

    After John MacArthur dies, Premill will ultimately die too because it is the re-crucifying of Christ.

    Without this hypnotic, beguiling, influential, powerful, charismatic public figure carrying its banner, and teaching such disgusting and vile error, it will fade into obscurity and theologians will remember John MacArthur as someone who came within whisker's distances countless times of damnable heresy but by God's grace remained tenuously Christian.
     
  6. RWD

    RWD Puritan Board Freshman

    Given the nature of theology, all true doctrine is within whisker distance of error, if not heresy. All we need do is contemplate the two natures of Christ or the doctrine of the Trinity and we can’t help but find ourselves navigating through some pretty treacherous waters. Theology is nuanced, so the question isn’t so much whether one has ever come close to heresy but whether one is orthodox.

    Dr. MacArthur holds to some very troubling teaching. I’d like to think his dispensationalism is more incidental than it once was, but that doesn’t give him a pass. He had stepped over the line into heresy on at least the eternal sonship of the Second Person, but he repented of that heresy years ago. His concerns over the blood of Christ were, I believe, unnecessary and divisive. His published view on abstinence is pietistic. His view that all who die in infancy are saved denies Romans 5, the Reformed understanding of concupiscence and the absolute need for mercy and grace. (Though many in the Reformed tradition have held that view.) In his “Lordship Salvation” years, he absolutely conflated the gospel, faith, repentance and sanctification. And of course, John is a baptist.

    It’s unfortunate that Dr. MacArthur was allowed to share the platform with so many Reformed giants over the years. I trust that in God’s wisdom and providence, Dr. MacArthur might have served as a sort of bridge by which many crossed into the happy pastures of Reformed thought. The flip side is, in the process his brand of theology was given an implicit stamp of approval, which might have served to hold others back in theological bondage.

    Anyway, keep up the good fight. Honor the brotherhood when fitting and give thanks to God when you can. :)
     
  7. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    He would see them of what Jesus did in our stead.as being memorials for the nations, just as Communion is a memorial to us today for what Jesus did for us at Calvary.
     
  8. RWD

    RWD Puritan Board Freshman

    I agree that’s how dispensationalists think, so it’s not equivalent to the sacrilege of the mass or anything like that. That said, I wouldn’t want to say that it’s in any sense a memorial like the Lord’s Supper. For one thing, Christ instituted the Supper. Secondly, the Supper is no mere memorial. It’s a means of grace. In the Supper we truly feed upon Christ in our hearts, with thanksgiving. It’s Christ who feeds us at the Supper by the Spirit.
     
  9. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    I was speaking of the Communion from the framework of how Dr MacArthur would, as he and I are both Baptists.
     
  10. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    I have always felt that the insistence on the resumption of animal sacrifices in the millennium was the weakest and least biblically tenable aspect of dispensational eschatology.
     
  11. RWD

    RWD Puritan Board Freshman

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not sure there’s a particular Baptist way of considering the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. For instance, the Confessions of 1689 and 1742 seem anything but minimalistic. In other words, it’s no mere memorial to confessional Baptists who affirm the Reformed doctrines of grace.
     
  12. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    I agree that to those of us holding to the Baptist Confessions its more than just a memorial, but Dispensational believers tend to see it as just a memorial.
     
  13. Stephen L Smith

    Stephen L Smith Moderator

    Dar brother, remember MacArthur is a Calvinist so his theology is far better than an Arminian Dispensationalist. I come for an Arminian Dispensational position so see this as the real danger.
    I suffer from Autism challanges so understand the challanges of illness. May God grant you stength and peace.

    I was personally grateful for MacArthurs "Gospel according to Jesus" and "Faith works: Gospel according to the apostles". These books have doe much to clarify the gospel. Yes I can assure you I cringe at Dispensationalism but Arminian dispensationalism with the Charles Finney evangelism is the worst enemy.
    Also strange MacArthur got involved with the Puritan project given the Puritans were Covenantal.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page