Dr. James F. McGrath of Butler University teaches courses on New Testament Language and Literature. However, anyone attending his courses really ought to investigate the heretical views that they will be taught at Butler University by professor McGrath.
Dr. James F. McGrath made this statement in bold on his own Exploring Our Matrex Blog:
It does not make sense for Christians to continue to expect a literal “second coming” of Jesus.
I also read online from his very own words that Dr. McGrath claims to be a reformed Christian in the same sense as a Reformed Jew. Reformed Jews are reformed for a reason. They no longer believe what the Jewish religion teaches. In other words, they are just cultural Jews. Dr. McGrath is reformed from the Christian faith that was once given, and now he makes his own Christian religion up as he goes along. His beliefs fits well with the other courses he teaches on science fiction.
Dr. McGrath said that he once thought the Bible was inerrant but he no longer believes that. Apparently all his critical thinking and human intellect has reformed his views from Christian to pseudo Christian heretical (if he even identifies with Christianity at all anymore). From the little I have read on his views, it seems obvious to me that he is on a mission to discredit beliefs that the Judeo/Christian scriptures should be taken literally or that the historical events even happened. Name the fundamental foundational truths of Christianity and Dr. James McGrath seems to take the side of the skeptics.
It really does not surprise me that biblical sounding courses are taught by people like Dr. McGrath who do not believe that the Bible is directly inspired from God. Universities are full of people with PhD’s that try to discredit orthodox Christian beliefs.
That said, his own liberal heretical views are not the reason for me writing this post. Dr. McGrath can believe and teach whatever Butler University allows him to teach. Nobody is being forced to go to Butler University. If you want your Christian faith to be tested by attending courses from heretical teachers, that is your prerogative. If you are one who wants to have more reasons not to believe in Christianity, I am sure Dr. McGrath will accommodate you.
The real reason for this post is that Dr. McGrath teaches a course on Revelation where he has his students critique commentaries on the Book of Revelation found on the Internet and then he publishes what his students wrote on a Blog on the Internet that he apparently created just for that purpose.
If Dr. McGrath kept the views of those that are obviously under his influence within his classroom, I would not have an issue with him. However, he publishes the critiques of Internet Revelation commentaries from students that are most likely primed by his course to be critical of literal interpretations of this book of prophecy.
This course by Dr. McGrath in all likelihood is the first study on Revelation that these students ever had and their term paper could be expected by any logical person to be written by the students to tickle the ears of their professor. The critiques of the students are not the issue, the issue is that McGrath puts them on a Blog that is indexed by Google and available for the whole world to read. By publishing critiques of Revelation commentaries by novices that know little about Revelation on this Blog he is doing the authors of those commentaries a disservice.
Dr. McGrath obviously knows that his students are not experts on Revelation or they would not be taking his course. So I do not know what motivates a man to then publish such novice opinions. I am not blaming the students (most of the students will only know what McGrath taught them). My issue is that Dr. McGrath is publishing reviews being indexed on the internet from people that he knows have very limited knowledge on Revelation. He is giving them an Internet platform bigger than their knowledge to attack the hard work of others. That is a cheap shot and in my opinion it is unethical.
I do not care if someone critiques my Revelation commentary on the Internet. That is not the issue. Even other futurists are not going to agree with me on every point. There would be no point in writing my commentary if I did not have some original views that could be disagreed with. Most crackpots that know nothing about Revelation that would want to critique my Revelation Commentary would never see the light of day in the Google index, but because they are students of Dr. McGrath using his Blog platform they do. That is the issue.
Those that do have knowledge and their own website or Blog to rank in Google have every right to critique my Revelation commentary on the Internet if that is what they choose to do and I have every right to rebut what they say if I disagree. However, I am not going to try to track down the students of Dr. McGrath’s classes each time he offers his Revelation course to point out where they missed it.
I believe I have read three or four critiques of my Revelation commentary over the last couple of years on that Blog he set up (two critiques remain as of this writing). Although all of those students did read parts of my commentary, they obviously had difficultly understanding that the futurist interpretation of Revelation uses the literal grammatical historical method of hermeneutics so it is going to be limited to using that method.
Again, I am not blaming the students, they are just doing a paper asked of them. Obviously McGrath’s prejudice against the futurist interpretation of Revelation is reflected in some of what they said, but there is no point getting into each student’s critique.
Many comments and emails have been sent to me over the years on my Revelation commentary and the fact is, that almost all have thanked me for producing this free work to help their understanding of Revelation.
I know any futurist view of the prophecies in Revelation will not please people who hold other views of interpretation but my commentary is not written to please idealists with their allegorical method of interpretation or Christian higher criticism skeptics like Dr. McGrath.
I suggest that serious Christians read what I wrote for themselves. They also need to realize that speculation on how the events are literally fulfilled is not the same as denying that the prophecy therein will be literally fulfilled as God indicated. There are difficult passages in Revelation but the overall prophecy is quite clear and not to be redefined by man. There are great warnings in the end of Revelation against those who would do that.
It seems to me that the students were taught the lie that those that use literal grammatical historical method of hermeneutics deny that there are symbols and figures of speech in Revelation. That is a favorite straw-man argument used against those who take Bible prophecy literally.
How many times do biblical literalists have to tell these people what we actually believe before they stop regurgitating the same lies? Figures of speech and symbology are recognized using the common literal method of interpretation. Bible prophecy is never all literal for people who take Bible prophecy literally. They understand that there are figures of speech and symbology in Bible prophecy and that includes the book of Revelation. However, futurists believe the author of the scriptures knows how to express and convey if his words should be taken literally or as a figure of speech. Otherwise there would be a failure to communicate on the part of the author. Most often the context and the author make it quite clear in context of the passage what is literal and what is a figures of speech. When it still is not clear then other scriptures are searched to find support. Christians should realize that scripture interprets scriptures.
If anyone is still confused by any positions that dispensational futurists hold, most of them and the rebuttals to these tired old arguments can be found on one website. Dr. Thomas Ice, and many other eminent premillennial futurist teachers maintain a database of articles on Pre-trib Research Center website. It is not like these straw-man arguments have not been explained time and time again to critics. There is this continual deliberate misrepresentation of what futurist dispensational literalists believe, and they probably know it but their students do not.
I will make one exception to not commenting on the student’s critiques and mention that one student said that I give no references except Chuck Missler and Lahaye in my commentary. Then that student assumes that everything else is just my own interpretation or opinion. If that student actually read my forward a little closer, the methodology I used to write the commentary and the main sources that I used in writing the commentary are given. Not to mention that there is a Bibliography in the commentary for good reason. Several positions I take are totally unique to me but most are at least built upon the teaching of many others. I cannot give references when my statements are building on the prior work of many Revelation commentators but I am not directly quoting any of them. Thus, the Bibliography.
There is no point to continue to go on to critique the critiques. Almost all of what the students know on Revelation is what McGrath taught them. It seems that critiquing Internet sites that have Revelation commentaries is going to continue to be part of Dr. McGrath’s Revelation course. If he wants to publish papers that students of his class are told to write on Revelation commentaries on the Internet and give them a platform for the world, that certainly is his right. However, as you see, I also have the ability to reciprocate with critiques of my own on his heresy and his Internet methods.
By the way, there is a way students taking this course can access the critiques of others students taking the course on an Internet Blog without publishing all the critiques for the world to read. You just use a rel=”noindex” command in the meta data of the header. In the blogger software that is used I believe that is done by just choosing to keep the blog private.
I know one thing, I would not recommend that you send your sons and daughters to be taught by someone who teaches courses on Christian New Testament Language and Literature but teaches obvious heresy and says “it does not make sense for Christians to expect a literal second coming”. It does not make sense to not believe in a literal second coming if one is truly a Christian. That has always been the position of anyone within orthodoxy of the Christian Church.
But like Peter said, in the last days there would come people like Dr. McGrath that would mock people who are suggesting that Jesus will be physically coming back to reign like scripture clearly says. Although Dr. James McGrath would not believe it, he is actually literally fulfilling Bible prophecy himself just by making such claims.
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
Good morning Don,
Nothing like reading about a heretical “christian” professor while sipping my morning Costa Rican blend coffee. Professors like these are certainly further signs of the last days. While there have always been, since the age of reason started, professors who wanted to question God, Jesus, and the Bible… To see Bible colleges and Universities given a tenured position to these individuals is certainly further sign of the return of Jesus.
I believe the real danger of boneheads like this is not only the influence he will have on the unfortunate students who take his courses; but the potential thousands who will read these skeptical teachings on the internet and of course take them as truth because they were written by “experts”… (Of course you know, if it’s on the internet, it must be true 😉
What is also interesting is how easily influenced people are by individuals who are perceived as an authority. If you have read some of the Milgram experiments, you will know what I mean. People have a tendency to take the word of people they assume to be in authority, or an “expert”, without really checking them out. For instance… If I may digress a little.. When I first found your website, I checked up on you as much as I could. I did a google search to see if there were any glaring problems with your credentials. When I read your personal bio on this site, I was initially skeptical given your lack of graduate school training and credentials. But as I read more of your stuff, and as much as possible, checked out your opinions with the Word, and other commentaries, I came to realize how much of an authority you are on the subject. While I may disagree at times with the tone of your posts ;), I find your postings to be very enjoyable and challenging. (by the way, I am sure my clients also disagree with my tone as well from time to time). 🙂
With regards to the verse that you ended this post with… I believe that modern technologies such as facebook and the internet have made it possible for much confusion to be unleashed upon humankind.
Thanks for your post this morning… It went great with my morning coffee… 🙂
Rod in Oregon
I am reminded of a former British Bishop who denied Jesus was God manifest. He insisted the bread and fishes miracle was simply a case of Jesus and his disciples opening their lunch boxes, and the crowd following their lead. Durham cathedral, where they invested him, was shortly after, struck by some decidedly none-allegorical lightning, burning its roof off.
It never ceases to amaze me how, despite the easy availability of a wealth of secular historical evidence, confirming past fulfilment of prophecy. These people still insist future prophecy to be allegory.
There’s none so blind…
LOL.. Phil… I had never heard that. Some will not be convinced no matter the evidence supplied.
Hi Don,I’m familiar with Mr. McGrath.His latest ranting’s were in the Indpls. Star on Jan. 21st.He wrote a “My View” about creation theories.A great rebuttal to his editorial was printed on Jan .25th.The Star ,as in other newspapers,always like to go to people like him for questions about “religion”.They would’nt dare ask a born again believer.Who cares what we think or believe ?That rag of a newspaper would’nt be in this house except that my husband wants to read it and look for a job.Sorry for my ranting.You’re right,McGrath is in Peter’s epistle alright.I just pray that God will use your site to plant a seed in the students.God bless
Well Don and all,
Well, since there haven’t been 100’s of prophecies fulfilled flawlessly and perfectly as told in the Bible (OT & NT) and since there is no Jewish state of Israel that has miraculously won wars in modern times since 1948 and maintained its ethnicity even after being driven out of the land long ago (which has never been done in recorded history), and since, none of us Christians know in our hearts and souls above all that “Jesus Christ Is Lord”…well, maybe McGrath is correct in his teachings 🙁
Don,
I think it is obvious that Mr McGrath must be correct on his assessment that there will be no “literal second coming” of the True and Living God.
After all…
God had no way of knowing that HIS creation would ever create supercomputers (“knowledge shall increase”) or super weapons.
I am sure the Lord is just totally overwhelmed by man and his creations.
And since, the Kings of this world have done such an excellent job in creating a wonderland’ish Disneyland type of Utopian existence, why would there be a need for the Messiah to come and spoil our day to day endeavors ?
Hey, we even have a “Religion Of Peace” to help guide man in his “peaceful” existence.
So, in essence, the Lord was obviously joking or lying when he talked relentlessly about his second coming.
So a person goes to Butler and spends/borrows xxxxx amount of dollars to learn a lot about so much that just aint true. I on the other hand pay my internet bill and learn from this websight a wealth of knowledge and truth. I will chalk this up as a win for me.
It breaks my heart. For many years I have believed the Bible about the heart of man and how evil are our thoughts…it is only since I have grown older I see it so clear and just am astonished at the boldness of people who declare such things. To know the Bible and to be able to quote it and still deny it, I can’t understand. But it is a heart problem and such are the
hearts of those who will not bow their knee to our Lord. I praise Him that He loved me and saved me by His grace. But for Mr. McGrath and those he teaches it is a terrible thing.
(And on top of that he looks to be Irish)
Well, it was very clever of Dr. McGrath to start and use his blog to leverage the spread of his influence. Also, using student’s papers as a source of fresh postings was also quite clever.
What you will never see on his blog are any positive references to Institute For Creation Research, Dr. Rick Oliver videos, or Dr. Kurt Wise videos.
First, I have heard of this one. I tend to avoid preterists (non-pre-tribbers) like the plague. I’m just too disorganized and always check out the tried and true prophesy teachers and Whose Who in Prophecy on Don’s link. Anyway been there done that. Seems like most of them in a debate nothing ever gets through to them anyway – they must have brains like concrete. They mostly just copy and paste or in your phrase “regurgitating the same lies” tens of pages of endless rhetoric.
Been wanting to ask Don about Pastor Hagee and if it is true that he is teaching about a different Messiah besides Jesus to the Jewish people?
Hi Ann,
Its quite a bit off the post topic so this will have to be the end of anyone discussing John Hagee here.
The real problem is that I am not sure John Hagee makes any real effort to present Jesus as the Messiah to the Jews. He supports Israel in many ways but the gospel seems to be absent. Perhaps his real motive is wanting the “blessings” in the blessing and curse promise. However, the blessing and curse promise is not just talking about helping Israel physically. If anyone really wants to help Israel, help them find the real Messiah.
I’d never heard of Dr. McGrath until this post, Don, but he certainly does sound like he’s fulfilling the prophecy of 2 Peter 3:4.
Korni, you said:
But for Mr. McGrath and those he teaches it is a terrible thing.
(And on top of that he looks to be Irish)
I’m a bit confused; what does his “looks to be Irish” have to do with what has been said? (just curious)
Thanks, Don, for another informative post 🙂
Most of these students are likely being introduced to the Word of God for the first time in their carnal lives. Some are obviously seeking that elusive “IT” they hope will fill the aching void in their souls. I say, exposure to the Scriptures is exposure to the Scriptures. And, whether presented rightly or wrongly, supernatural forces come into play once that door is unlocked. Discerning students will ultimately find the truth, because the Holy Spirit adores seekers. They are fair game. Like the IRS, He will relentlessly pursue them. Many of us have come to the truth via false doctrine. I was a hard ass, Scotch-Irish Calvinist half of my life. One of the frozen chosen…or how about half the Protestants in America who have been clubbed over the head with the false doctrine of “conditional salvation.” Yes, Dr. McGrath is bone-headed and will pay a terrible price for it someday. But let’s have a little faith the Holy Spirit will lead many of McGrath’s students to the truth. End Sermon.
Tom,
God can do what He wants to reach people but I think you have it wrong. Most that are taking this course are just filling their liberal arts quota. If the only exposure they get to the Bible is a distortion of the truth and a message that the Bible is just fables that never happened and allegories to be interpreted by men they never will take it seriously.
You also overlook the fact that there is an attempt here to destroy the faith of those that were brought up in the Christian faith. Now you know why most kids in a country that claims to be 80 percent Christian come out of college and never go back to a Church. Academia does everything it can to discredit Christian beliefs.
We can see by what is happening in America how effective the Holy Spirit has been in using the McGrath’s into leading students to the truth. Antichrist spins put on God’s word does not lead to Christ. It Sounds to me like you retained a lot of that hard-ass Scotch-Irish Calvinist thinking even if you think you changed.
If I may chime in,
Being an alumni of a major Christian university, I have personally seen the damage professors such as the Mcgraths’ are doing to our youth. The university I attended is now teaching courses in religious studies designed to increase “understanding” and “tolerance” of other beliefs. How did a major Quaker university reach the point where they are now teaching what is approaching a universalist mentality? It is by hiring people of Mcgraths ilk. I can see where the Holy Spirit can use the false messages spewed by people like Mcrgath as a route to speaking to the hearts of the students which can bring them to the truth. However, most young college students are in a place developmentally where they are “questionning” everything including the truth. So this confused developmental stage is a ripe bed for the lies of someone like Mcgrath.
So many of our universities that are supposed to be Christian appear to have sold out, and are allowing people like this to teach. Complacency within the body, along with other false messages can clearly be seen in the research. However, Don, I am not sure I would make the conclusion you have drawn linking 80 percent of Christians coming out of college and never going back to a church. I think this would make the assumption that those who do not go back to church, are not having a relationship with God. I believe we are in an age where the church is so ill that many are finding their relationship with God outside the “church” following college as they have become disgusted with the likes of Mcgrath. Not the advised route to continued relationship with God, but given some of the things going on within churches, not surprising either.
Rod in Oregon 🙂
Hi Rod,
I agree that not all of those 80 percent have tossed their belief in Christ. Like you suggest, many have just tossed the churches for awhile. Christian people tell me all the time that just cannot find a church that they want to attend. Many do not think the pastor centered church model with the hour Sunday ritual is even biblical.
Chuck Smith recently said they we need another Jesus movement like in the late 60’s and 70’s. I agree that we need a grass roots Jesus movement again. Many of the Calvary Chapel churches that did come out of that 60’s Jesus movement are now becoming like the rest. After Smith is out of the picture I fear for what will happen even in the Calvary Chapel churches.
Hi Don,
I totally agree. That would be an interesting thread discussion… 🙂
Rod in Oregon
Speaking of percentages…
Once the percentage of apostate churches become larger to the point of real Christian Churches being a miniscule percent, would it stand to reason that The Lord will have seen enough with what’s been done to HIS church and rapture the remnant of the church that believes in him despite the apostates ?
I would guess a counter argument to this question would be no, that would give the remnant minority a chance to get the gospel out to a nearly ‘real Christian, church-less world’.