A Quick List of Amillennial Resources in Light of MacArthur's Charges

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.

Comments

[Kim Riddlebarger]

Mr. Sheldon:

Your comment is off-subject. The dating of the Book of Revelation does not affect amillennialism one way or the other--there are preterist amillennarians, although I am not one of them. You might want to check out Jay Adam's The Time Is At Hand.

But all further posts off-subject will be deleted!

Stick with the theme of the particular thread. Questions on eschatology can be asked elsewhere on this blog.

[Echo_ohcE]

Bobby,

Sorry, we're having trouble communicating, probably because we don't share certain views. You've said I've misunderstood you, so OK, and what you wrote in response made no sense to me. I'm trying to understand what you mean by the law of the excluded middle, but I have no idea what you mean by that or how it applies here. Nor did I understand what you meant by the heirarchies of beliefs or whatever and, well, I don't get it. Sorry.

E

[Steve]

I couldn't agree more with Kim's comments to Caleb. I find this to be my past and current experience as well: an ignorance of and caricatures of amill and postmill...and I'm premil, but that may be a changin!

Thanks for the book recommendations.

[GusCalvinBass]

Kim,

First and foremost, I am a huge fan of your blog and an old school on the White Horse Inn.
I am not sure if you were there at the Shepherd's Conference, but I did not detect any "militant advocacy of dispensationalism." I thought that Dr. MacArthur explained the Scriptures, as he understands it. I guess, I'm not sure why the "backlash?" 2 Timothy says "And the Lord's bondservant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all." Yet it saddens me, as a Seminary Student and Missionary-in-training what I have read in the Blogosphere. (not only in yours, but around as well)

MacArthur is not a neophyte, he is a well read man of God; so I would not be accusing him of not knowing/reading the other side.

Let's continue with a discussion that brings us closer to Christ and helps us to practice the one another’s. (By this I don't mean, "Just love Jesus;" However we all know of ways to converse without making ad-hominem arguments)

Thanks again for your ministry,

Gus

[David]

Some posts worthy of further consideration and responses:

Shepherd's Conference 2007 Archive
http://www.challies.com/archives/cat_shepherds_conference_2007.php

Pulpit - Why Calvinism Necessitates Premillennialism
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/07/why-calvinism-necessitates-premillennialism/

Pyromaniacs - Why Calvinism Necessitates Premillennialism
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-calvinism-necessitates.html

[Caleb]

Kim,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. When i began to be convinced of the so called Doctrines of Grace (which were taught at my former home church, Grace Community in CA) i also began looking into Amill theology. I thought if i wanted to be a "true" Calvinist maybe i needed to be Amill as well. Some people told me that was the case (you have to be Covenantal in order to really be a Calvinist/Reformed,etc). So I read a number of books from the "other side" and I wrestled with some of the major texts. For me it was my study of the OT (spec. the minor prophets) as well as a larger study through Romans 9-11 that lead me to my strong Pre-mill convictions.

With that said, I do respect your convictions because it appears you are committed to biblical theology as well. I guess every time we preach the Word our systematic theology and our biblical convictions are tested and refined.


Blessings,
Caleb

[Wayne Rohde]

My most recently acquired Reformed/amil book has been a pleasant surprise: David Holwerda's "Jesus and Israel: One Convenant or Two?"

I had been aware of Holwerda's book through Doug Moo's commentary on Romans, the footnotes in Kim Riddlebarger's "A Case for Amillennialism" and the Reformed/amil books recommended at the Riddleblog, but had simply never purchased or read the book myself. Well that changed today, and I've thoroughly enjoyed this wide-ranging book (it deals with the land, the temple, etc., etc., etc. ... as well as with Rom. 9-11).

Also, at someone's suggestion, I picked up a copy of W. J. Grier's "The Momentous Event: A Discussion of Scripture Teaching on the Second Advent" (published by the Banner of Truth Trust). It always amazes me, at least somewhat, to pick up one of these older books (copyright 1945 in this case) and see that older amils were very conversant with a great range of issues and texts. I say this because I've encountered so many premils who either don't seem to be aware of many of these same issues and supportive texts, or are aware of them but strangely don't acknowledge them!

Of course the shoe can also be on the other foot. But this phenomenon makes me wonder, as in the case of MacArthur's comments, if some folks are really simply unaware of certain facets of the debate ... or unaware of recent developments in such debates ... ... ... or perhaps just unwilling to take into account what's really in print and what's really believed by the various proponents of their respective positions.

One would like to think that people would like to be informed prior to entering into full-fledged discussions of the issues, and that having been informed they would then be eager and willing to debate the real and pertinent issues, as opposed to just fighting the same old battles where those on opposite sides of the debate dig in their heels and just argue the case from some deeply entrenched position that doesn't engage what's at the heart of the matter.

The way I see it, information is our ally. The more we know, and especially the more we can get our hands on and absorb information from the leading and cutting edge exponents from each position in the eschatological debate, the better off we'll be.

Kim has listed some great resources. I've read and reread most of them. My hope is that more of us would dig deeply into God's Word and also avail ourselves of the best of what scholars have written.

[J.L. Trujillo]

Greetings in Christ,

Although he not yet realized it (I hope one day he does), respected Dr. John MacArthur has successfully diagnosed his own problem. In his first sermon at the Shepherds Conference after pounding Amillennial eschatology for about 15 minitues, Dr. MacArthur said:

"If you get Israel right you will get eschatology right, if you don’t get Israel right, you will never get eschatology right, never."

The moment I heard those words I thought to myself, “that is exactly the problem he has, he has not gotten Israel right and THEREFORE his eschatology is so WRONG”. I even thought about writing a rebuttal to his speech using that statement as main theme "Getting Israel Right", but then I remember about a very good article that I had read a few years ago written by Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary where the topic of “Who is the Israel of God?” was discussed in an excellent way. So, an article about "Getting Israel Right" has being written since 2001. Hopefully brother MacArthur will come across it, read it, consider it carefully and receive the truth of the Word on this topic. Here is a link:

· http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dcrow/dave/IsraelofGod.htm

And this is Dr. Scott Clark’s web site:

· http://www.wscal.edu/clark/

In Christ,

[L P Cruz]

I know why Amill is accurate and I have abandoned even my historic premillinianism.

If you ask me why I think Amill is accurate, my reason is the implication of the Gospel - the Cross. When this is understood, Amill makes sense. If you get the Gospel right, you will get your eschatology right too.

Also I wonder why Dr. MacArthur is identified as Reformed, when in fact he denies some if not all the reformed doctrines on the covenant, baptism, the supper, ecclessiology.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MyRetraction.htm

LPC

[William Mann]

Lee Shelton:
You bring up a good point. I once conducted a small study on the dating of Revelation. I went to The Master's College and pulled most of the commentaries on Revelation. As I read the introductions I found that those who believed in a 95 A.D. date based it only on three things: the letter of Irenaeus (written nearly ninety years later and somewhat vague), John's banishment to Patmos (we might have the wrong dates for this), and tradition (not a strong argument). Those that gave a pre 70 A.D. date gave about seven historical and biblical reasons, which seemed to me to be very strong arguments. For those that want to explore this issue more deeply, I highly recommend Kenneth Gentry's book "Before Jerusalem Fell" for starters. There may be a few problems with some things he says, but he makes some great points and gives food for thought.

[William Mann]

Kim:
I disagree with you that Lee Shelton's comments are off subject. Other than the way one views Israel, the dating of the book of Revelation is probably the second most important link to your end time view. If you view Revelation as written after 70 A.D. you must see a restored temple and will therefore be premillenial. If you view Revelation as written before 70 A.D., most likely you see the fulfillment of much of the book in the destruction of Jerusalem, and you will be a full or partial preterist, making your end time view either Post or Amillenial.

[Brad]

I suppose it is not always practical, but I'd rather not label you nor have you label me. I recognize that within the fraternities of seminary professors and scholars, as well as within the fraternaties of pastors, labeling is normal. This is passed down to the less scholarly, who then adopt these labels rather than develop good study habits. I realize the average person, as well as the average pastor probably, doesn't have time to do the scholarly work on so many topics. But it can't be a good substitute to adopt labels instead. For many years I have doubted that any of those so labeled, such as in this discussion, adhere to all the characteristics assigned those labeled. I appreciate Dr. Riddlebarger and Dr. MacArthur and wish that neither side would disparage the other. But I am not better myself, having done so many times as well. But if on any point of this theological discussion, or others, we were to ask one another about how to interpret any particular Scripture, or several, I think we'd find that none of us is purely on the side of one label or another. But as I read the authors addressed within, I soon get a sense of which ones really want to guide all to walk with Christ and which ones are just spoiling for a fight. Thus I complement both Dr. Riddle and Dr MacArthur, since I think it plain from their writing that they want to guide all to follow Christ. Thank you for addressing these things. Keep up the good work.

[Mike Walker]

Another outstanding book on "expansion theology" as Kim Riddlebarger calls it is, "Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two?" by David E. Holwerda, Eerdmans Publishing 1995. The author is both passionate and scholarly. I could barely put the book down. Some of the most beatiful writing I've ever read in Chapter Two (and elsewhere). The book is very well referenced with indexes and footnotes.

[Fr. Robert (Anglican)]

It was back in the 80's I believe when John MacAruthur was teaching against the eternal Sonship of Christ. We all have a growth curve, but John acts like his theology fell out heaven! No, he is a poor example of theological thought all too often.

[Writing A Dissertation]

it's good to see this information in your post, i was looking the same but there was not any proper resource, thanx now i have the link which i was looking for my research.

[Edmond Caouette]

After having moved to a more "Calvinistic" theology, I attended a seminary that was reformed but futuristic in approach to eschatology. We were required to read The Bible and the Future and contrast it with Dispensationalism Today (Ryrie). Ryrie beat the same old drum as MacArthur about literal interpretation of scripture. Several years later I read Abraham's Four Seeds by Reisinger, where he clearly demonstrates the importance of a literary approach vs a literal approach to interpretation. For the zeal of being true to scripture, most modern interpreters who are fundamentalist opt for literalism vice literary. The bible must be interpreted on its own playing field. That field is literary because it is literature, albeit fully inspired by God. I finally got it and have been a partial preterist since. BTW Reisinger's book is a good read and easily readable by those not trained in theological garb. Enjoyed your article, yet grieved by John's statements.

[Timothy]

Alan Kurschner,

I attempt to say this with the sincerest form of love for my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith, including yourself.

The Pre-Millennial view is inconsistent with not only Scripture, but also with logic. You obviously believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ. That's fine, but here are your issues:

When Christ returns, He will judge the world in sin and in righteousness. This happens precisely when He returns; NOT 1000 years later. There are NOT two judgments; one at the beginning and one at the end of the 1000 years. When He returns, ALL sin will be judged, ALL sinners will be cast into hell, and NO sin will be able to enter into the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21, et al.). So, ONLY the righteous, redeemed, blood-bought saints will enter the Kingdom of God. The Pre-Millennial view has these righteous, redeemed, blood-bought saints (the ONLY people afforded to enter into the Kingdom of God) falling a second time into sin and rebelling against the Lord who caused them to be regenerated, born again, and given a new heart (etc., etc., etc.). The Pre-Millennial view has a SECOND fall of man into sin, this time being Christ's glorified saints.

The whole concept of a literal 1000 year reign falls apart when you think about everything logically. I deal more thoroughly with this in a chapter I have written in my book, which I hope to see published within the next year. God knows His people need to read it, especially those under the influence of the Dispensational persuasion. I grew up under Dispensationalism and only came out of it a few years ago through the reading and study of what my Bible ACTUALLY had to say.

Study it out carefully, Alan, and I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusions I have, seeing the great many flaws with the Pre-Millennial view. At first, I threw out my Pre-Trib beliefs and held onto my Pre-Mill beliefs because of Revelation 20. But in a comparison of Scripture with Scripture, and thinking logically about what ALL of Scripture has to say, I had to throw out my Pre-Mill beliefs, too. The Amillennial view is the only one that consistently makes sense out of all the passages.

[CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS]

Very interesting discussions- After reading Hal Lindsey, Lorraine Boettner and others, I eventually read William Hendrikson's 'More Than Conquerors'. I was finally convinced about the 'A Millennium ' view after reading W J Griers' The Momentous Event', truly a gem.