A Quick List of Amillennial Resources in Light of MacArthur's Charges
Saturday, March 10, 2007 at 10:22AM 
In the wake of John MacArthur's recent and unfortunate comments about amillennialism, a number of you have emailed me, asking some variant of this basic question: "I have a great deal of respect for Dr. MacArthur and am troubled by what he said." Some felt he raised serious issues and wanted immediate responses, while others were just plain angered and wanted ammunition to fight back.
Let me respond to this by simply reiterating some of the basic amillennial resources currently available--resources of which Dr. MacArthur is obviously not aware, or sadly, chose not to consult. I have already mentioned some of these books in my previous post, but now want to take to time to explain why these particular volumes are important, especially if you are troubled by Dr. MacArthur's comments.
In light of MacArthur's "five questions" (Click here: Pulpit Magazine » Blog Archive » Why Calvinism Necessitates Premillennialism), these are books that all parties interested in this topic must read. Those of you who are dispensationalists and claim to be "Reformed" this especially applies to you. Don't just take MacArthur's word as the "last word." See for yourself if what he said about amillennialism is true and whether or not his dispensationalism stands up under biblical scrutiny.
The first is Mike Horton's God of Promise (Click here: Amazon.com: God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology: Books: Michael Horton). Covenant theology is the glue which holds Reformed theology together. Covenant theology is not a product of medieval-Reformation scholasticism which is then mechanically imposed on the biblical text. Horton argues that covenant theology is Scripture's own internal skeletal structure. So, start here. Read Horton, and interact with his arguments and biblical evidence.
The second is my own A Case for Amillennialism (Click here: Amazon.com: A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times: Books: Kim Riddlebarger). I make the case that as a Christian, the Christ-centered New Covenant is the hermeneutical lens through which I must read all of Scripture (even the Old Testament). I am not a Jew. Christ and the Apostles tell me what the Old Testament means (in terms of how it reveals Christ in type and shadow). The New Testament tells me how Christ and his church fulfills the Old Testament covenant promises. I also deal with important biblical passages like Daniel 9:24-27, Romans 9-11, the Olivet Discourse and Revelation 20.
The third is Dennis Johnson's Triumph of the Lamb (Click here: Amazon.com: Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation: Books: Dennis E. Johnson). If you are a dispensationalist, claim to be Reformed, and have not read the Christ-centered amillennial interpretation of Revelation, then shame on you! If you have a scholarly bent read Beale. But Johnson's work reaches similar conclusions, is accessible and devotional. You need to read this and see for yourself if it makes better sense of the biblical text than do dispensational commentators.
Fourth is Hoekema's The Bible and the Future (Click here: Amazon.com: The Bible and the Future: Books: Anthony A. Hoekema). I'll never forget reading it for the first time, just as I was questioning my own life-long commitment to dispensationalism. I was pushed over the edge. It is much more comprehensive than my own book, and is very, very, helpful. Had Dr. MacArthur bothered to read this, he would not have asked the four questions that he did, nor caricatured amillennialism. He may not have agreed with Hoekema, but he'd be forced to answer particular arguments and not set up straw men who are easily torn down.
Last is the "millennial debate" book, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Click here: Amazon.com: Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond: Books: Darrell L. Bock,Jr., Kenneth L. Gentry,Robert B. Stri). Strimple makes the case for amillennialism, Blaising for premillennialism, and Gentry for postmillennialism. Strimple does a brilliant job. This book represents the proper temper and tone that any truly profitable discussion over differing millennial views ought to have. It is well worth reading.
I have long believed that anytime Reformed amillennialism is a given a fair hearing in premillennial and dispensational circles, people may not come away convinced (indeed, many are convinced), but they stop saying "amillennialists don't take the Bible literally," that our views are the same as "liberals" and Roman Catholics, and that we have no biblical support for our position.
For a thorough list of Reformed amillennial books, commentaries and studies, see the list here: Click here: Riddleblog - Reformed Amillennialism.
For a list of on-line sources, Click here: Riddleblog - Links to Helpful Books, Essays, and Charts. Just remember that on-line sources can never take the place of book-length treatises.
Reader Comments (38)
Thanks for your post of those works that you listed that represent the standard Amill position properly. MacArthur's comments were gratuitous and did not contribute to a healthy or Biblical discussion among Reformed brothers and sisters. If he thought that Amillers use an inconsistent method of interpretation, then he could have worded it better.
As you know, I am a premiller, but not pretrib. I am sorry to see much of the discussion of late in the blogosphere focus on MacArthur's "premillennialism" because I am convinced that it is rather his _pretrib_ convictions that drove him to make those comments, albeit couched in premill language, which I will not go into here.
Now Amillers cannot make the same mistake as pretrib-premillers are doing (which I am seeing of late). And that is, thinking that the “best” of premillennial arguments come from popular pretrib teachers as MacArthur, Lahaye, et. al. They should get their understanding of premill from serious non-pretrib thinkers who are premill.
Kim you asked us to read the above books for an accurate portrayal of the Amill view which I think every serious student of prophecy (no, the Bible) should do; but I ask that that the Amill do the same for premill works.
I realize that the reason that many Reformed folks (myself included) are disappointed in MacArthurs’ statements is because he is a noted Calvinist preacher who should know better to make those ignorant and gratuitous remarks. But by all means, no one should be deluded to think that he represents the best that premillennialism has to offer. We need to get away from that pop-pretribulationism, which im my view is anathema.
Kim, thanks again for the post, I recommend all premillers read those books that you listed (though I still need to read one of those myself) to gain an accurate theological view of your position.
Blessings,
Alan
Although the books by Allis and Cox, mentioned by Tony, certainly have value (as does Hamilton's "The Basis of Millennial Faith"), these older works (in my view) often tend to spiritualize OT promises, relegating many such promises to the concept of the kindom being in Christians' hearts ... as opposed to the newer amil emphasis (Hoekema, Riddlebarger, et al) that these promises have an already/not yet fulfillment, and see their ultimate fulfillment in the new heavens and earth. So I say: Use the older volumes with discernment!
If I were to add to Kim's list, I would say that Cornelis Venema's "The Promise of the Future" is a good and more recent complement to Hoekema's book (although, all and all, Hoekema's book is a whale of an overview of all aspects of eschatology, my personal favorite), and that for a quick read the first half of Sam Waldron's "The End Times Made Simple" is pretty helpful. However, on the specific topic of the millennium, Kim's book is definitely the best case for amillennialism.
Two more quick points: (1) Many folks are familiar with the old "The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views." But though Hoekema wrote a very good case for the amil theory, the book is pretty dated. Grenz's "The Millennial Maze" is also good. But the "Three Views" book edited by Darrell Bock (and recommended by Kim) is much better than the rest and takes the debate to a new level. Everyone should really get this book by Bock, et al. (2) If the rumors are true, and Kim Riddlebarger's forthcoming book is as comprehensive as I've heard it may be, I'm betting his third book on eschatology will be a can't miss book, one that ought to be added to the list and read by all who are interested in eschatology.
Great books. I would simply add that if people want to really and truly understand these issues it also must start with a grasp of Biblical Theology. Reading men like Vos, Goldsworthy, and Clowney prepare the reader to see that eschatology is much more than "end times," but that all of Scripture is Christological and Eschatological in nature.
Chad
I concur with you that just as premils need to be exposed to the works of recent amils like Hoekema, Venema, Riddlebarger, Strimple, Poythress, Beale, etc., so amils need to be aware of and deal with the latest premil works, such as Craig Blaising's chapter in "Three Views."
Otherwise, each side can be guilty of caricature, etc. ... and just joust at windmills.
But what would you recommend other than Blaising, for the premil view? Much of a book with a similar title to Kim's book, namely "A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus," goes little if any beyond many of the older premil arguments, and even includes classic or modified dispensational perspectives (though, to be sure, of a much more refined variety than the pop-eschatology of Hunt, LaHaye, etc.). So what's out there besides Blaising?
Also, I would disagree that the discussion prompted by MacArthur's comments has been unhelpful and unbiblical. Obviously that's true of some of the discussion, but not all of it. Many good points were made by many good people, and Scripture was the basis of many of the points made.
Happy studying to all! Jesus is coming again, and in this we rejoice!
Sorry that you had to "ice" the Calvinist Gadfly for the time being. Good stuff.
I hope you notice that I have responded to two distinct issues. One is JM's gross misrepresentation of amillennialism. That's highly problematic precisely because MacArthur is so widely respected. But I've not responded to premillennialism per se. It is MacArthur's dispensational variety of premillennialism that is the issue here. Dispensationalism is inimical to covenant theology which is the foundation of the entire Reformed system of doctrine, including the sovereign purposes of God, which is to save a people unto his name (not two peoples--a Gentile church and national Israel).
While there are many problems (to my way of thinking) with all forms of premillennialism--not the least of which is two bodily resurrections, evil in the millennial age, redeemed/resurrected saints living side by side with people in natural bodies and so on, I place historic premillennialism in an entirely different category.
And you are right. Amillennarians should read the best premillennial writers and not accuse all premillennarians of being dispensationalists.
Thanks for your response. To answer a few of your questions. As far as books, I do think that Blaising's chapter in the Three Views Book is a good place to begin. I think he makes a cogent argument in his exegesis of Rev. 20.
But I am more familiar with monographs and commentaries so I will list a couple here. I would suggest C.R. Nicholl's monograph _From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1&2 Thessalonians_. (Not too mention his thesis in his appendix that Michael the Archangel is the Restrainer who Beale agrees with by the way in his commentary on Thessalonians).
Osborn's commentary was dissapointing, not because I am prewrath and he is post-trib, but his Arminianism comes out in it and I did not find it very exegetically rigorous as it should have been. Although, I think he does a fair job in his exegesis in Revelation 20 and arguing for a futurist intepreation elswhere.
Though not pertaining to arguments in Revelation, Bock in his commentary on Luke (21) and a few other places makes exegetical arguments for his Kingdom Biblical view points. And I am sure his commentary on Acts due out at the end of summer will be important in this respect.
There are a handful of important journal articles as well I could send to anyone if they are interested via email.
Kim, I may not be the one called for it but I may even suggest that you and C. Cooper have a profitable discussion or debate on Amillennialism-Premillennialism possibly on the White Horse Inn. Besides Marvin Rosenthal he is the most noted speaker and writer on prewrath-premillennialism. Since given the boot by Moody because he changed his rapture view when he was teaching there, he has been writing and teaching on Prewrath-Premillennialism:
http://www.prewrathrapture.com/charles_cooper.php
"But I've not responded to premillennialism per se. It is MacArthur's dispensational variety of premillennialism that is the issue here."
Point well taken.
Blessings,
Alan
<em>I hope you notice that I have responded to two distinct issues. One is JM's gross misrepresentation of amillennialism. That's highly problematic precisely because MacArthur is so widely respected. But I've not responded to premillennialism per se. It is MacArthur's dispensational variety of premillennialism that is the issue here. Dispensationalism is inimical to covenant theology which is the foundation of the entire Reformed system of doctrine, including the sovereign purposes of God, which is to save a people unto his name (not two peoples--a Gentile church and national Israel).</em>
As an Progressive Dispensationalist I agree with you, Kim. The issue here is hermeneutical--and I think if someone holds to Westminster soteriology, then to be herm. consistent, that same person should be Covenant and not Dispensational. I think the issues surrounding continuity and discontinuity (i.e. Law and Gospel) has everything to do with this discussion.
BTW, I would also affirm Alan's call for the amillenialist to read the "best" of the premillenial arguments; and not appeal to John MacArthur as such (this would only be cariacturing, just as Mac. has done with the amil. position).
For my part, again, I grew up in the Assembly of God, a large Pentecostal denomination. I used to hold to the "Left Behind" theology. But now I am OPC, and I am amillennial. Despite having grown up in that other tradition, I don't even speak that language anymore. It's hard to even communicate with someone in that tradition, much less figure out what they believe and why they believe it.
Echo_ohcE
I used to be an revised dispy and now I'm progressive. Just as you've moved traditions, so have I. Your comment is a good heads up for humility . . . but it seems a bit circular since you deny what you affirm; i.e. you used to be AOG but now your OPC, there had to have been some matrix of communication and subsequent understanding on your part (i.e. trans-tradition) in order for you to move from one to the other. Also if what your articulating is taken seriously it can foster a sectarianism leading to a Christianity that believes that "we" have the truth, and "they" don't--which limits fruitful inter-confessional dialogue.
In Christ
I do not know how you can possibly say that? Those who grow up in a tradition should be the very ones who understand how they think and communicate.
I grew up pretrb. I know them like the back of my hand. I know how they think and why they think it. I know why they ostracize believers from their churches for rejecting an "any moment rapture."
I echo Bobby's comments, no pun intended :-)
Blessings,
Alan
Bobby,
There indeed was a time when I fully understood my previous position, and began to understand what would become my position. But that time is long gone. Now all my categories are completely different. When I consider what I used to believe, it just looks incoherent to me. You may find that remarkable, and the fact is, I do too, which is why I thought it worthy of a comment.
Also, you seem worried that what I am saying is espousing a certain attitude of superiority, or that it will lead to that attitude. I understand, I think, your concern, because I think it's very poignant. In fact, that was part of the point I was making.
Here's the deal. If I thought that the tradition I had previously been in had the truth, I would not have left it. I didn't move traditions as a matter of preference, but as a matter of submission to the truth - at the very least in my opinion, whether or not it is a fact is a separate issue in the context of this discussion.
However, since you brought it up, I'll just let you know that I am convinced that the Bible teaches one thing and one thing only. For example, the Bible cannot truly support, say the reformed Christian faith and the Assembly of God faith equally. They cannot both be right. The former espouses cessation, for example, while the latter says that tongues are in fact for today. Both cannot be true; the Bible teaches one or the other.
What I don't understand at all is the idea that truth is a matter of subjective opinion, that people who disagree can both be right. That's completely incomprehensible to me. It doesn't make any sense.
I am not sure if this is what you are espousing, but if it is, I sure would like to hear why you think that's even possible.
But whatever we think about these issues, I am merely stating a fact. My categories have changed. What I used to believe just doesn't make sense to me anymore. That may be due to the fact that when I was in that previous tradition, I really didn't think about it much, but just accepted what I was told. I grew up in that tradition, and pretty much left it when I got out of the house to go to college. So perhaps my beliefs were simply based on being told what to believe, rather than why I should believe it. Maybe that's part of it. But the fact is, what I used to believe it almost completely unintelligible to me now. It just doesn't make sense anymore. I'm not espousing an ecclesiastical view when I say this, I'm just simply stating the fact of the matter.
But my point in all of this is simply to say that understanding a view that you do not espouse is at best extremely difficult, and at worst totally impossible.
For example, if someone has never been in the military, never been to war, never been shot at, and never really feared for thier life, then there really isn't any way that they can appreciate what war is like, is there? How can they understand it if they haven't experienced that? How can they understand what is meant by "the intense, anxious boredom of the hurry-up-and-wait?" Anyone who has ever been in the military, particularly in a time of war will know exactly what that phrase means, but people who have never served will not really be able to relate. They don't know what it's like.
And since that is the case, civilians shouldn't preside in judgment over what a Marine or soldier did or failed to do in a combat situation. They cannot possibly appreciate what his perspective might have been. That's precisely the reason why we have military tribunals, where people in the military are judged by those in the military. For the same reason, our country finds justice in a trial before a jury of our peers.
I'll give you another example. I've seen all the charity commercials on TV, like the Christian Children's fund, let's say. I've seen pictures, images of starving children in Africa, and it is always uncomfortable, and I've always been sad about that in some way.
But then I actually went to Africa, and saw a shanty town. I saw the little children running around naked with bloated bellies, running after us pointing to their mouths, a gesture intended to be a request for food.
I'll tell you what - there is absolutely no comparison between seeing a few pictures on TV and actually being there. No comparison. If watching those commercials makes me uncomfortable and a little sad, being there made my heart simply break in a million pieces. I have never in my life been so moved with pity or made to feel so incredibly sad.
Some people say that this is a sure indication that I should go and be a missionary there, I guess to ease my suffering. But the honest answer is that you couldn't pay me enough to go back there and expose myself to that kind of emotional pain. I look away from the TV when those commercials come on. The pain it dredges up is too intense, and I frankly just don't want to feel that. I'll understand if anyone finds this cold and callus. I'd agree with that. It is kind of cold.
But my point is that seeing it on TV or hearing about it or reading a book about it means NOTHING. Going there and LIVING in it for a while is COMPLETELY different.
And I think that makes a good analogy for trying to understand other peoples' views. There's no way to live in it without espousing it, and if you don't live in it, you can't really understand it.
As Anselm said, "I believe that I may understand."
Echo
Alan,
I don't really know how I can say it either. I'm not saying that it makes sense. I'm only saying that it's true. I couldn't possibly appreciate the views of the Assembly of God anymore. But that's not my point.
My point is simply that views that you do not hold are hard to understand. Perhaps particularly if you never previously held a different position.
For example, let's say someone grows up in the A/G like I did. How, for example, would this person understand why the Reformed baptize infants? In order to understand why the Reformed baptize infants, you have to first understand covenant theology, which is a huge undertaking to actually understand it well. But to understand covenant theology is to grasp how the Bible is structured covenantally. Once it is grasped it is believed. If it is not believed, it cannot be grasped, because if it is not believed, it is because it does not appear plausible.
I have been impressed lately with the number of Reformed Baptists I have met who have a good understanding of covenant theology. I think they can understand where we might think that covenant theology gives rise to infant baptism, and therefore don't really fault us for it, even though they don't agree.
By contrast, someone in the A/G will simply think that the OPC is very Roman. Dead orthodoxy, they'll say, worried too much about doctrine they'll say. Trusting in their own understanding they'll say.
So what are you going to do? Are you goint to sit them down and, beginning with Moses explain the entire Scriptures to them step by step? You could, but it would take a very long time.
Ah, well, that's the nature of religious beliefs I think. You can't really understand it until you first believe it. I reference Anselm again, and find him to be quite right.
E
I'm not sure why you think I might be "espousing" a PoMo view relative to truth from my comment--but to be clear I'm not. But I still think you missed my jist. You moved from AOG to OPC, at some point you were in a "suspended" epistemological state relative to AOG dogma and OPC--what you're articulating makes it sound like you must believe one thing (hierarchicially) over another prior to obtaining an ability to affirm or deny what you did believe, or are now currently believing. This violates the logical law of the "excluded middle".
You're also taking Anselm's "Faith seeking Understanding" project out of context. Anselm's project was making an epistemological distinction between "believers" and non-believers (cf. I Cor. 2)--i.e. providing an Christian epistemology, not discussing subjective belief states about "objective dogma" amongst Christians. A good work on Anselm's project is: Faith & Understanding by Paul Helm.
I went two years ago with a good friend to maybe six midweek services at her huge Calvary Chapel Church in Philly (Joe Focht.) We often had some heavy discussions about doctrine, mine amil and Reform, hers very "CC-ized". (She was somewhat open to my thoughts, but her hub a diehard pretrib type.) I went partly for the friendship and partly for the bookstore....Piper and Jonathan Edwards side by side with Hal Lindsey and Hunt...they had everybody and everything.
You really have to go to one of those churches to understand the hold this has over people. Joe Focht is so funny, so aware of human nature, and so "into the word" instead of flesh and hype. Thousands of people sit there mesmerized. At the end they have these altar calls that are focused entirely on how the rapture is coming any minute...you want to escape the trib, (not eternal hell) and be saved. Every message IIRC had the rapture mentioned, and there a few earnest and passionate referrals to those who reject the pretrib rature doctrine, and the complacency they are complicit in, and their error.
These people look at the mideast and see a rapture any day now;they are so full of zeal and prayer and out to win the lost, quick.
From a psycological standpoint it was one of the most intriguing church experiences I've had, though brief. I sat there absoutely SICK about the dispy rapture crap- pardon my hebrew- but feeling their urgency and passion and total devotion to evangelism. Thousands of people in rapt attention as Joe preached. And everybody is on pins and needles waiting for the rapture...it is sooooo close. Joe is so loved, he is such a hero to so many.
(I talked to an pastor friend who conversed with four individuals from that church right after the recent war with Lebanon, and all four were very angry that the rapture had not occurred yet.)
Anyway echo, I think you are right. You have to go there and see it and feel it to really grasp the hold it has. It is far more than some intellectual debate, it is so central, it is the very foundation of their future hope. I really think it is a battle that must be won in the prayer closet, as the stronghold is so entrenched, and goes far beyond mere ideas. But their appeals, their passion, their entreaties that you be ready for the pretrib rapture....well, you just can't feel it from a written message. You have to experience it.
I think it is fair to say that Amill authors should carefully some of the resources Nate posted and Pre and Post mill guys should read some of the resources you posted. Let's not take MacArthur's word for it nor should we take Calvin or Sproul's word on it either. Let's be honest, this happens on BOTH sides of the fence my friend.
MacArthur and Sproul (I'm sure) are VERY familiar with these issues and the arguments used by "the other side."
Let's not forget in all this we are Together for the Gospel!!!
First, the dating of the writing of Revelation. There appears to be sufficient internal evidence to suggest that it was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., yet most adhering to the amill position seem to accept the mid-90s date without question. Second, if it was indeed written in the mid-90s A.D., why is the fall of Jerusalem--arguably the most catastrophic event in the history of that region--not even mentioned once?
You are right--we all need to read the best of both sides and respond in Christian charity. The fact that Mr. MacArthur did not choose to do that is what precipitated the current uproar in the first place. Had he done what you suggest, this would not have happened.
But don't forget that those of us who are converts from dispensationalism to historic premillennialism, amillennialism or postmillennialism, have already read the other side.
In fact, when I started to have questions about dispensationalism (the fruit of my slow and painful conversion to Calvinism), I read Pentecost's Things to Come from cover to cover. I read Peter's Theocratic Kingdom and devoured Walvoord's Millennial Kingdom. I then read Ladd and Robert Duncan Culver and became historic premillennial. Dispensationalism and its "two programs" was highly problematic to me, as was its inability to explain key biblical passages (i.e., 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; Ephesians 2:11-22; and Revelation 1:3; Acts 15:15-18, etc).
So, my guess is that most amillenniarians (and even historic premillennarians) who took offense at MacArthur's militant advocacy of dispensationalism, did so because we know the other side, and because our side was inaccurately portrayed.
We are in this together for the gospel, and that means speaking the truth in love, not misrepresenting the other side.