"Defending the Indefensible". By: Gary DeMar

In 1988, John MacArthur wrote The Gospel According to Jesus, a controversial book in certain circles because he relied heavily on the views of Calvinistic writers to deal with the lordship salvation controversy. My respect for MacArthur grew because he was not afraid to take on those in his own dispensational camp who were teaching "defective theology" about discipleship. The book got rave reviews in Reformed circles even though MacArthur remains "a traditional premillennial dispensationalist."1 In addition, MacArthur, along with D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and R. C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries, joined forces to respond to the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" movement, even though evangelical stalwarts like J. I. Packer and Charles Colson were involved.

In his most recent entry into modern theological debate, MacArthur has put his considerable reputation on the line by attempting to tackle the issue of eschatology as it relates to preterism. Preterists believe that the majority of New Testament prophetic texts refer to the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Not that he's the first to attempt a critique of preterism. Dave Hunt and Thomas Ice were early contestants. Their undertakings, however, to remain charitable, were less than satisfying.

For a number of years I have been trying to engage big-name dispensationalists in a public debate on the topic of Bible prophecy. And for those who don't want to debate, I proposed a discussion forum. I wrote a detailed book on the subject, Last Days Madness, in an attempt to lay all of my eschatological cards on the table and show that dispensationalism cannot be defended biblically. I was hoping that someone would at least deal with the arguments presented in Last Days Madness in an honest way. So when I saw The Second Coming: Signs of Christ's Return and the End of the Age by John MacArthur, I was encouraged. Finally, I thought, MacArthur will apply the same hermeneutical model to eschatology that he applied to justification by faith and the debate over Roman Catholicism and abandon dispensational premillennialism. No, I didn't really believe that he would, but I hoped he might honestly deal with the issues. He doesn't.

A Debater's Trick

Using a debater's trick, MacArthur begins his analysis of nondispensational eschatology by assessing full-preterism. Full-preterists believe that all the New Testament prophetic passages were fulfilled in A.D. 70. Thus, there is no future bodily return of Christ. The resurrection is also given a non-traditional interpretation. Of course, I have no problem with someone debating the merits of full-preterism or partial preterism. R.C. Sproul engages in a debate with full preterism in his The Last Days According to Jesus, and Ken Gentry has written extensively on the subject. I've had numerous discussion with full-preterist writers and have voiced my dissatisfaction with a number of their interpretations. While MacArthur admits that partial preterism is not heresy, he goes on to write that "it is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by [partial] preterists is what laid the foundation for the hyper-preterist error."2 The old slippery-slope argument.

The same argument could be used against a dispensationalist like MacArthur. It would go like this: "It is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by dispensationalists is what laid the foundation for the hyperdispensational error." Hyper or ultra-dispensationalism is so classified based on when the church age begins, either Acts 2, Acts 9, Acts 13, or Acts 28. Traditional dispensationalists don't like being included with hyperdispensationalists. Dispensational writer Charles F. Baker writes explaining these dispensational divisions:

"Since there is little practical difference between the Acts 9 and the Acts 13 views, these positions are usually considered in general as one. Those who hold the Acts 2 position like to refer to those who hold the Acts 13 or Acts 28 views as extreme or ultra-dispensationalists. Ryrie, who holds the Acts 2 position, refers to those of the Acts 13 persuasion as Moderate Ultradispensationalists, and those who hold the Acts 28 position as Extreme Ultra-dispensationalists, although he admits that his own view is considered to be ultradispensational by antidispensationalists".3

Preterists could make all dispensationalists look bad by pointing out that there are hyper-dispensationalists out there, and since they are heretical, their closest relatives­ Acts 2 dispensationalists ­are equally suspicious. One leads inevitably to the other. Furthermore, following MacArthur's logic, dispensationalists could be turned into heretics by observing that Jehovah's Witnesses and dispensationalists are premillennial. Premillennialism, therefore, leads to cultism.

Dispensationalism and premillennialism should be judged on their own merits. This does not mean that a case cannot be made for a logical relationship between dispensationalism and hyper-dispensationalism, but each position should first stand on its own. Nowhere in Last Days Madness do I drag hyperdispensationalism into the debate. I deal with dispensationalism on its own terms.

Look Who's Hyper Now!

The same "hyper" argument can be applied to Calvinism. Seeing that MacArthur is a Calvinist, I can just hear some of his Arminian friends saying, "It is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by Calvinists like John MacArthur is what laid the foundation for the hyper-Calvinism error." Amillennialist David Engelsma, also a preterist critic, follows a similar slippery slope argument. Engelsma writes that partial "preterism will become consistent preterism."4 This is curious coming from Engelsma since he defends Calvinism against those who maintain that Calvinism inevitably leads to hyper-Calvinism or that Calvinism is in fact hyper-Calvinism. He writes in Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel:

"In most cases the charge "hyper-Calvinist" is nothing but a deceptive attack upon Calvinism itself. Someone who hates Calvinism, or the uncompromising, consistent defense of Calvinism; yet he hesitates to attack Calvinism openly and forthrightly, and therefore he disguises his attack as an attack on "hyper-Calvinism" and "hyper-Calvinists."5

This is exactly what Engelsma does in his attack on preterism. Instead of dealing with the detailed arguments of preterists, he immediately attacks hyper-preterism as if partial and hyper-preterism are synonymous. Engelsma even attacks a non-preterist, Andrew Sandlin of Chalcedon, accusing him of being a full preterist because he shares other theological distinctives with partial preterists. Very poor scholarship indeed. And Engelsma is a professor at a seminary! Let's modify the hyper-Calvinist paragraph above by substituting hyper-preterist for hyper-Calvinist.

In most cases the charge "hyper-preterist" is nothing but a deceptive attack upon preterism itself. Someone who hates preterism, or the uncompromising, consistent defense of preterism; yet he hesitates to attack preterism openly and forthrightly, and therefore he disguises his attack as an attack on "hyper-preterism" and "hyper-preterists."

Engelsma and MacArthur know that they cannot deal with partial preterism on its own terms because it would show how each of their prophetic systems cannot stand biblical analysis. So they attack an extreme form of the position, hoping no one will notice. This tactic is often successful because most people are ignorant of the facts.

Every theological group has its "ultras." Paul addresses this when he asks, "Should we remain in sin, in order that grace might increase?" (Rom. 6:1) and "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (6:15). There were some who claimed that salvation by grace through faith was a license for lawlessness. "May it never be!" Is salvation by grace through faith heretical because some people misapply its tenets? May it never be. Calvinism, dispensationalism, premillennialism, and preterism should be studied and evaluated on their own merits, not in terms of how far some have taken a position.

Lightweight Scholarship

The Second Coming does not compare favorably with The Gospel According to Jesus. Detailed analysis and comparative study are exchanged for superficial and misleading rhetoric. MacArthur scrupulously avoids the heart of the debate over the time texts. He morphs "near" and "shortly" into "imminent" without ever making a case for how this can be done exegetically. Including an appendix by Arthur W. Pink on "The Imminent Return of the Redeemer" (1918) adds nothing to the debate, especially since Pink later changed his views on eschatology. If God wanted to convey that Jesus could return at "any moment," He would have directed the biblical writers to choose Greek words that mean "any moment" instead of "near" and "shortly." He didn't.

Consider James 5:8­9, a passage that MacArthur uses to support his contention that Jesus could come "at any moment," even though 2000 years have passed.6 "You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand" (v. 8). "At hand," or "near," cannot be made to mean "any moment." "At hand" is defined for us by the Bible in the next verse: "Behold, the Judge is standing right at the door" (v. 9). "At hand" = "right at the door." How far from the door is Jesus in Revelation 3:20? Being "right at the door" means being close enough to knock.

MacArthur is either oblivious to the debate surrounding this issue or he tactically decided to steer his readers around the topic so as not to raise a very big red flag.

A Hurried Writer

The book reads as if it were written in a hurry. For example, in one place he writes that preterists "ultimately depart from and nullify the strict literal sense of Matthew 24:34," while on the previous page he chides preterists for insisting that Matthew 24:34 should be interpreted with "wooden literalness."7 MacArthur should have studied how "this generation" is used elsewhere in the New Testament. He didn't. Others have. "This generation" always refers­ without exception ­to the generation to whom Jesus is speaking.8 Since the meaning of "this generation" is crucial for establishing the proper time setting for the Olivet Discourse, MacArthur should have spent considerable time justifying his interpretation. He calls the preterist interpretation of "this generation" a "misunderstanding"9 without ever dealing with the extensive arguments preterists use to defend their position. Preterists are not the only ones who have this "misunderstanding." Here are three non-preterist examples:

"[T]he obvious meaning of the words 'this generation' is the people contemporary with Jesus. Nothing can be gained by trying to take the word in any sense other than its normal one: in Mark (elsewhere in 8:12, 9:19) the word always has this meaning."10

"[This generation] can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke."11

"The significance of the temporal reference has been debated, but in Mark 'this generation' clearly designates the contemporaries of Jesus (see on Chs. 8:12, 38; 9:19) and there is no consideration from the context which lends support to any other proposal. Jesus solemnly affirms that the generation contemporary with his disciples will witness the fulfillment of his prophetic word, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the Temple."12

Why doesn't MacArthur attempt to refute these non-preterist scholars? Do they misunderstand the clear teaching of Scripture?

Will the Real Literalist Please Stand Up

MacArthur states that interpreting "this generation" in a "wooden literalness" fashion would mean that "the rest of the Olivet Discourse must be spiritualized or otherwise interpreted figuratively in order to explain how Christ's prophecies could all have been fulfilled by A.D. 70 without His returning bodily to earth."13 Do preterists spiritualize the events described by Jesus in Matthew 24? Not at all! They compare Scripture with Scripture. We let the Bible interpret the Bible. There were literal earthquakes (Matt. 27:54; 28:2; Acts 16:26) and literal famines (Acts 11:28; cf. Rom. 8:35), just like Jesus predicted (Matt. 24:7). Paul tells us that the "gospel" literally had been preached "to all the nations" in his day (Rom. 16:25­26; see Col. 1:23), just like Jesus predicted (Matt. 24:14). This says nothing of the promise by Jesus that the literal temple would be destroyed before the last apostle died (Matt. 16:27­28) and that first-century generation passed away (24:34).

Conclusion

Last Days Madness answers every argument raised by MacArthur, arguments which he studiously avoids addressing in this poorly conceived book. Some might claim that MacArthur is unaware of my work, and so he was unable to respond to my arguments. This debate has been around for centuries. Anyone writing on this topic should be aware of the current literature. And since he quotes from an internet article by me, he knows what's going on. MacArthur doesn't even interact with R. C. Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus. John MacArthur might be able to fool the dispensational faithful, but he won't even be able to do that much longer. The Second Coming is just one more example where dispensationalism cannot be defended when principles of sound scholarship are followed and applied.

NOTES

1. John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He says "Follow Me"? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 25.
2. John F. MacArthur, The Second Coming: Signs of Christ's Return and the End of the Age (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 223.
3. Charles F. Baker, A Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Grace Bible College Publications, 1972), 6.
4. David J. Engelsma, "The Preterism of Christian Reconstruction (2)," The Standard Bearer (July 1999), 389.
5. David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1980), 5.
6. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 51.
7. John MacArthur, The Second Coming: Signs of Christ's Return and the End of the Age (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 81, 80.
8. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th ed. (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999), 55­60, 183­88.
9. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 219.
10. Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator's Handbook of the Gospel of Mark (New York: United Bible Societies, 1961), 419.
11. D.A. Carson, "Matthew" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985), 8:507.
12. William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 480.
13. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 80.

“Si no puedes matar el mensaje....” Por: Daviel D`Paz

Una de las tácticas sucias usadas en el campo de la apologética es el de utilizar argumentos ad hominem cuando no se pueden derribar los argumentos del contrincante. Si los argumentos del contrario son fuertes y no pueden ser derribados con otros argumentos mejores y bien presentados, la tendencia es a usar argumentos que son mas bien ataques personales en vez de ser argumentos bien elaborados, los cuales deberían tener como objetivo el demostrar las falacias de los argumentos presentados.

 

 Esta táctica no es para nada nueva. Podemos ver como fue usada en contra de Cristo y sus discípulos. La diferencia es que, contrario a los ataques personales usados por algunas personas en la actualidad, los enemigos de Cristo llevaron este principio hasta sus últimas consecuencias: “Si no puedes matar el mensaje, entonces mata al mensajero”. Esto quiere decir que cuando no se puede contradecir ciertos argumentos debido a que son irrefutables, entonces existe otra alternativa que sí puede funcionar: atacar y desacreditar a la persona cuyos argumentos no pueden ser refutados. Esta táctica no solo es sucia, sino es también completamente anti-cristiana. Lamentablemente es usada a menudo por aquellos que afirman ser cristianos y que defienden el evangelio de salvación.

 

 Un ejemplo de esto son los ataque personales hacia James White por todos aquellos que se han empecinado en defender la integridad de Ergun Caner cueste lo que cueste. Ergun Caner ha afirmado cosas que no ha podido demostrar y como resultado, muchos de sus defensores han tenido que apelar a los ataques personales para poder amedrentar a aquellos que han estado presionando para que Ergun Caner demuestre que todo lo que él ha afirmado tanto en audio como en video es verdad. Este es el primer ejemplo de un ataque personal hacia James White enviado por un defensor de Ergun Caner llamado Craig Daliessio y nos muestra hasta qué punto puede llegar la sucia táctica de los ataques personales:

 

“Escúchame burro, si vas a citar lo que puse en mi facebook, UTILIZA MI NOMBRE y cítame en contexto. Yo soy nadie y no tengo nada que perder. No tengo que preocuparme de lo que piense la CBS, tal como el Dr. Caner lo debe hacer. Mi crecimiento y desarrollo en el Sur y mi justa indignación aunado con mi aversión hacia fraudes como tú, no me impiden ni en lo MINIMO el estar presente en tu próxima presentación pública y meterte mi bota en tu trasero. Tu me enfermas y enfermas al cuerpo y ofendes al Espíritu del Dios que afirmas servir, pero que no conoces, excepto en las polvorientas páginas de una teología técnica interminable que sin duda ni siquiera has visto UNA VEZ en acción por parte de Dios. Tu velo es muy delgado, mi arrogante amigo reformador. Deberías firmar todos tus escritos con el nombre de “la señora Turpin”. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2010-05

 

Para los que deseen darse cuenta del significado del ataque de Daliessio cuando dice que James White debería firmar sus escritos como la señora Turpin, pueden ver este enlace para darse cuenta quien fue la señora Turpin:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_(short_story)

 

Uno pensaría que esta clase de ataques solo pueden provenir por parte de aquellos ateos o de personas anticristianas. Pero la verdad es que provienen de aquellos que se dicen ser creyentes y llenos del Espíritu de Dios. Pero la cruda realidad es que esta clase de ataques solo pueden ser realizados por personas que no conocen el verdadero evangelio y que en su lugar tienen una religión solamente. Como cristianos debemos oponernos a toda costa hacia este tipo de ataque por personas cuyos motivos no son los correctos.

 

James White explica el por qué muchas personas actúan de esta manera: porque han sucumbido ante el síndrome del “estrellato” y de las “personalidades”. Si un líder evangélico es popular y cuenta con una lista de libros mejores vendidos, entonces no te atrevas a CUESTIONARLO. Esta mentalidad lamentablemente es la que impera en el mundo evangélico de la actualidad. Ergun Caner es un claro ejemplo de esto. Se ha convertido en todo un “personaje” de los medios de comunicación que el cuestionarlo es sinónimo de herejía. ¿Quién es James White para que se atreva a cuestionar lo que Ergun Caner ha afirmado? ¿Quién es James White para que se atreva a cuestionar las afirmaciones de un presidente de Seminario? Esta clase de mentalidad no es originalmente cristiana, sino que la hemos tomado prestada del mundo del espectáculo y la farándula.

 

La evidencia presentada en el caso Caner, es tan abrumadora que ninguna persona que carezca de objetividad puede afirmar que se está cometiendo una gran injusticia al pedirle explicaciones a Ergun Caner. Sin embargo, tal parece que esto YA ES PROHIBIDO entre los círculos de las “personalidades evangélicas”. No puedes ni siquiera cuestionar lo que este o aquel predicador afirma debido a que se han rodeado de una aureola de luz que los convierten en seres casi intocables. James White nos da las razones de esto de la siguiente manera:

 

 “When you ask these people if they have even bothered watching the videos, reading the documentation, checking the facts, the vast majority have not. They have been told by others "people are attacking the great Dr. Caner!" and that's all they need. Facts matter nothing. But for others, there is no limitation on how far they will go. Ad-hominem attack upon anyone who would stand up and say "Dr. Caner must answer these questions for the sake of the integrity of his position and the work of the gospel" is the name of the game. I have rarely seen the kind of vitriol spewed my direction as I have over the past few months since this issue arose. And, as normal, the primary purveyors of hatred and insult have been Baptists. This has been my experience for twenty years now: no one, and I mean no one, outside of rank, God-hating atheists, can out-do a Baptist when it comes to acting in the most non-Christian ways. My parentage, my spirituality, my scholarship---it matters not, it is fair game for the sin of having dared to question Ergun Caner's story. As if I am even slightly relevant to the documented facts that have been produced.

 

I hear Peter Lumpkins (one of the chief purveyors of addled thinking in the promotion of Canerism today) has raised questions about my being an expert on Islam. Once again Lumpkins shows himself utterly incapable of either research, or honesty, or both. Those who have taken the time to listen to my debates, or listen to my lectures, or listen to my interactions with Islamic claims on the Dividing Line (such as the current response I am offering to Sheikh Awal) know that I have consistently eschewed the title of "expert on Islam." Honest people know I refer to myself as a student of Islam. I began studying it in 2005 in preparation for my debate with Shabir Ally at Biola in May of 2006. This information would not be hard to obtain, if Peter Lumpkins cared to obtain it. But unlike how we have carefully sought documentation in reference to asking the important questions of Ergun Caner, Peter Lumpkins and his fellows (Guthrie et al) have no concern for context or serious research. No, they are desperate for something to throw in the air to distract from the ever-growing list of questions that are being asked of Ergun Caner, so any old thing will do. So once again Peter Lumpkins has beaten up a straw-man of his own imagination, which is about as far as he has ever gotten in his campaigns of late.

 

 ….So I ask Peter Lumpkins: who has been honest in this situation? The one who has rejected being called an expert in Islam, who has often said that he is too old now to ever learn all he needs to know in that field (life is too short), but who has taken what he has, in fact, learned, into the very forefront of apologetic exchange with Muslims on three continents, or Ergun Caner, who fabricated the grounds of his alleged expertise? The answer is obvious. Will Peter Lumpkins admit it?”

 

 Sin duda que todos los que deseamos hablar la verdad, podemos sentir un rechazo hacia los ataques personales que no tienen nada que ver con el tema en cuestión. Se ha generado una campaña en contra de James White por parte de varios defensores de Ergun Caner cuyo único objetivo es enlodar la imagen de James White a como sea. En este juego sucio, tal parece que los principios éticos no tienen cual ninguna importancia, pues lo único que importa es defender a los culpables y para ello usan cualquier clase de subterfugio sin importar si es válido o no.

 

Tal es el caso de Peter Lumpkins quien se ha involucrado en defender a Ergun Caner a pesar de toda la evidencia en su contra. Para ello, ha tenido que atacar de manera PERSONAL a James White cuestionando su trasfondo educacional y otras cosas más por el estilo. Peter Lumpkins es una clara muestra de como actúan los abogados corruptos en la actualidad: defendiendo a los culpables aún cuando toda la evidencia pese en su contra. Esto puede esperarse entre los círculos de incrédulos, pero no entre aquellos que dicen ser fieles a la verdad del evangelio.

 

Daviel D’Paz

 

Ergun Caner al Descubierto!!

La Crisis en la que se encuentra la iglesia Evangélica actual (1ª Parte)

¿Camino a la salvación….o a la ESTAFA-ción?

Mi opinión sobre el video titulado: “Una noche sobre Escatología”

LAS INFERENCIAS DEL DISPENSACIONALISMO: ¿SON ACEPTABLES?