With All Due Respect to Dr. MacArthur . . .
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 05:43PM 
All of a sudden I started getting emails . . . Lots of emails . . .
"Did you hear what John MacArthur said about amillennialism at the Shepherd's Conference?" "He said Amillennialism was intrinsically Arminian, and that every self-respecting Calvinist should be premillennial!" "He even said that Calvin would be premillennial were he alive today!" On and on it goes.
This barrage of email was precipitated by Tim Challies "live-blogging" report on Dr. MacArthur's lecture (Click here: Challies Dot Com: Shepherd's Conference (I). You might want to take a look at this if you haven't.
All I can say is, "calm down." OK, MacArthur fired a shot across the bow. But until I've read the transcript of his talk, I won't respond to any specific points, other than to say, if (and that's a big "if") he's been accurately quoted, then it really is too bad that someone of his stature would say the ill-informed things that he did.
From what Tim Challies reports, I don't recognize my own position in MacArthur's critique. I am certainly self-respecting (to a fault), and I am a Calvinist, who is well-known for my advocacy and defense of the Reformed faith. I am also amillennial and think dispensational premillennialism defaults at a number of points.
If you wish to be "fair and balanced" about these things, then I'd plead with you to first read Horton's God of Promise (Click here: Amazon.com: God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology: Books: Michael Horton), Hoekema's Bible and the Future (Click here: Amazon.com: The Bible and the Future: Books: Anthony A. Hoekema), and my A Case for Amillennialism (Click here: Amazon.com: A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times: Books: Kim Riddlebarger), and then see if MacArthur's arguments still hold water. It would be a shame if he gave such a talk and yet was not at all conversant with the major (Calvinistic) writers who set forth and defend the other side! Sounds like he is not.
More on this to come, I am sure!
Kim Riddlebarger
1). Jason Robertson, who was present for MacArthur's lecture, gives his account of what was said: Click here: FIDE-O: The Mocked Shepherd.
Sounds very much to me like MacArthur did indeed badly misrepresent Reformed amillennialism, as well as use a number of specious arguments, all the while completely ignoring the obvious problems raised by dispensationalism (which have been identified and refuted time and time again). Robertson was saddened and shocked by the aggressive, uncharitable, and erroneous nature of MacArthur's remarks. MacArthur claims he did this to get people to think. Well, getting people to think about this will be a boon to amillennialism, but it would be nice if the voice of "Grace to You" had extended a little grace and charity toward amillennarians.
2). The gist of MacArthur's arguments against amillennialism can be found here: Click here: Pulpit Magazine » Blog Archive » Why Calvinism Necessitates Premillennialism. MacArthur asks four questions and then answers them:
1. Were the writers of the Old Testament amillennialists? No
2. Were the Jews of Jesus time amillennialists? No
3. Was Jesus an amillennialist? No (cf. Acts 1:3, 6-7)
4. Were the apostles amillennialists? No (cf. Acts 3:19-21, 25; 15:15-17; Rom. 3:3-4; 9:6-8, 13; 11:26-29)
Pulpit Magazine editors add another…
5. Were the earliest church fathers amillennialists? No
Surely, Dr. MacArthur is aware that the entire confessional Protestant tradition (from the time of the Reformation, until now), would give entirely different answers to these four questions than he would. That does not mean he's wrong, but it means he should know the other side well enough to accurately represent it. And yet according to Dr. MacArthur, he's the true Calvinist, while self-consciously rejecting the eschatology of the entire Calvinist (i.e., Reformed) tradition . . . Something is clearly wrong here.
As far as question five goes, anyone who claims that the church fathers were unanimous in their commitment to premillennialism, needs to read Charles Hill's book (Click here: Amazon.com: Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity: Books: Charles E. Hill) which will quickly put an end to that pernicious myth.
3). I have dealt with all of the matters above in my book (as has Anthony Hoekema, and others). It would be nice to see MacArthur interact with real people and real arguments, not straw men. I'll bet you that John MacArthur cannot tell you what any of the major amillennial writers actually believe about Israel (Vos, Venema, Kline, Horton, Hoekema, Strimple, Riddlebarger et al). Why? From his comments, its obvious that he's never read nor interacted with our arguments . . . And for the record, I have read Pentecost, Ryrie, Walvoord et al . . . carefully.
4). If someone would be so kind as to send me a written transcript of MacArthur's lecture, I'd be happy to respond down the road, point by point, (although others are already doing a fine job (Click here: FIDE-O: Was Jesus an Amil?). I'm not too cheap to buy a tape, but would prefer to reply using a written text.
Reader Comments (208)
Chris,
"I can't believe how ARROGANT you are."
This is a pronouncement of judgment.
I am far more guilty than you for this, because I've said far worse more frequently.
And while it may be the case (I am not saying it IS the case, only allowing for the hypothetical possibility for the sake of argument) that James has exhibited arrogance, he is no different than you or me in this regard.
We all begin with the same a priori premise: "I know what I'm talking about."
So what kinds of approaches have helped you change your mind about what you believe? When someone helped you espouse a more biblically correct view, how did they get you to see it that way?
Did they or did they not begin with a charge of arrogance?
E
I am not judging James. I am making a logical assessment of his comments concerning the topic of Johnny Mac on his chastisement of the Amil. position.
He was basically calling out the persons on this blog which is a reformed blog. I was merely defending my position as I understand it. Don't judge me judge the things I had written. If I wrote something false please I would love to hear from you.
chris
Your comments are MUCH APPRECIATED. I have been trying for so long to get through to some "reformed" friends I have. Their arguments are illogical and there is no reasoning behing their false claims. The Amil position is so archaic. Those ancient writers (who came up with it) were not privey to the revelations we have seen come to pass in the last 100 years. Most would have chosen NOT to believe is such heresy. And the reason I say "heresy" is not just to use the term loosley, but that the amil position is a lie straight from Satan. All it does is say God is a liar. He doesn't keep His promises. If these reformers are so awed by God's majesty, justice, and sovereignty -- then don't they believe that God doesn't lie? God back again people and look at Genesis and elsewhere and realize that it was an everlasting covenant (and not conditional). As for the amil position, it is a takeoff of "replacement theology" which also was started by Constantine,who hated the Jews and professed it openly. Here is a quote from him
“We ought not therefore to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Savior has shown us another way. And consequently in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Savior, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence as their delusion may urge them? It would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people as the Jews. It is our duty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord.” [The Nicean and Post-Nicean Fathers, p. 54]
Wake up. Don't you see the root of this belief system? Rooted in hatred for God's CHOSEN people- the Jews.
1) Here we go again!
2) As for premils of this ilk, "Give 'em enough rope and..."
By my count, you've referred to the Reformed/amil system as entailing or as being: (1) illogical arguments, (2) no reasoning, (3) false claims, (4) so archaic, (5) heretical, (6) a lie straight from Satan, (7) saying God is a liar, (8) saying God doesn't keep His promises, (9) not believing that God doesn't lie, (10) unaware that the covenant in Genesis was everlasting and unconditional, (11) a takeoff of replacement theology, (12) rooted in hatred for God's chosen people - the Jews.
Here's my attempt, from an amil perspective, to demonstrate that: (1) I am aware of God's everlasting and unconditional covenant in Genesis, (2) I have no hatred for the Jews, (3) I do not replace the Jews with Gentiles or the land promises with spiritual promises, (4) I will attempt to use logical and reasonable arguments, (5) I insist that God keeps His promises and is not a liar, and (6) I am not making false claims or engaging in heresy and Satanic lies.
But before I do, I ask you to think about your charges against amils. I'd say that the blunder you've committed involves a failure (a mega failure) to understand what many amils really believe. You've certainly attacked something other than what I believe, even though I'm amil. Have you read and do you understand amils like Riddlebarger, Hoekema, etc.? In light of your comments, I'd say that it is you whose charges are archaic (and anachronistic); they don't square with what a great many amils believe. Furthermore, you evidently place a great deal of emphasis on guilt-by-association. You assume that everyone who is amil necessarily believes the types of things with which you charge Constantine. But this tactic can lead to all sorts of errors. For example, there are many cults that have premil beliefs; should I therefore charge you with believing what such cults believe?
Now for my points:
1) I agree that Genesis 17:7,8, which refers to God's covenant with Abraham, is an everlasting covenant and that it includes the promise of the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession. I realize that some have taught that this covenant was completely fulfilled during the OT days of Israel's occupation of the land, or that Israel forfeited her right to the land through disobedience, or that the promises are fulfilled in a spiritual way in one's heart. But I believe that this is an unconditional promise, and that it will thus be fulfilled in a physical way. And I would also point out that the word "everlasting" is applied not only to the covenant itself (v. 7), but also to the possession of the land (v. 8). Abraham's descendants are to possess the land forever. Regardless of the issue of the timing of the millennium (before or after Jesus' return), no 1000 year period involves an occupation of the land forever.
2) I certainly have no hatred for the Jews. I believe that the gospel is the power of God for salvation - both for Jews and for Gentiles (as Paul said in Rom. 1:16). Furthermore, I do not rob God's people of any promises.
3) I realize that many of the OT promises were spoken to Abraham and his descendants, which clearly involves the Jews. Of course God also promised Abraham and his descendants that God would bless all the families of the earth too (cf. Gen. 12:3), and these promises of blessing to the Gentiles are just as real, just as important. I also agree that the physical promises, including the land promises, are real and important.
But the question, for me, is not whether or not God will keep such promises (He will!), but how He will go about doing so. Every premillennialist I've read or known places a great deal of emphasis on the Jews occupying their land during the millennium. But as I mentioned above, Abraham and his descendants were promised an everlasting occupation of the land, not a temporal occupation of the land. We realize from a great many OT and NT passages that the present heavens and earth will ultimately give way to a new heavens and earth. The present heavens and earth are temporal, but the new heavens and earth are eternal. Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22 speak of this new heavens and earth (as does much of the immediate context), and II Pet. 3:13 and Rev. 21:1 (and much of Rev. 21/22) provide additional details. A full reading of these passages and their contexts, along with Romans 4:13 and Hebrews 11:8-16 (cf. esp. vv. 15,16), indicates that all of God's people (believing Jews as well as believing Gentiles) will occupy this new world (a new earth as well as a new heaven), and that they will do so forever (not just for 1000 years).
I realize there are details about which good people disagree. Personally, I believe that the distinction between Jew and Gentile was broken down at the cross (per Eph. 2/3), such that Jews and Gentiles are now and forever one in Christ (cf. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-29). I see indicators in John's description of the new heavens and earth and new Jerusalem that Jews and Gentiles will collectively occupy the new world forever.
But let me make this clear: God's word does not fail (Rom. 9:6). Not all who are physical Israel are also spiritual Israel (Rom. 9:6). Some Jews have failed to be saved, but they themselves are not among God's elect in terms of salvation (Rom. 9:7-29), and (thus) they themselves have not believed in Christ for salvation (Rom. 9:30-10:21); accordingly, God's word has not failed in regard to them. Furthermore, other Jews are among the elect who (thus) believe and are saved; and God's word has neither failed the remnant who are already saved (Rom. 10:1-10), nor failed others who will ultimately be saved (Rom. 11:11-32; cf., e.g., v. 26).
As Sam Storms has put it, God has not excluded believing Jews from anything, but rather included believing Gentiles in the one body of Christ, the one olive tree.
God will keep all His promises ... to believing Jews AND GENTILES (cf. Rom. 2:28,29; 4:11,12; Gal. 3:7,29). He has not made such promises to unbelieving Gentiles OR JEWS; thus He cannot be rightly charged with breaking His word. One cannot break a promise not made.
Again, we can quibble about this or that detail. And of course there are those who see these things differently. But to charge all amils as you have done is, I would say, unfair.
4,5,6) I hope that I have used some logical and reasonable arguments, that your realize I take God and His Word seriously (God's promises are good, and they are to be trusted), and that it's a pretty huge stretch to label what I, an amillennialist, believe as heretical lies from Satan.
I would doubt that most premils would side with you in your attacks. Perhaps some classic dispensational premils would; but I doubt that even most of them would. My guess is that most premils, whether classic dispensational, moderate/revised dispensational ... and particularly progressive dispensational and historic premils ... would want to distance themselves from your remarks.
I'd just like to know, quibbling about this or that aside, what it is about an amil scheme such as that above that is so lacking in logic and so heretical.
If you want guilt by association, aren't the Jehovah's Witness's Premil? Correct me if I am wrong.
And from the Premil view, what are the dangers with the Amil view?
I would appreciate answers in gentleness and humility, thank you.
I think your question is a very good question. And I'd like to take a stab at answering it! Furthermore, I'd like to do so at three levels:
1) I'll bet most premils would say their concern is that the amil view does not do justice to the OT promises of God to Israel, and I'll bet most amils would say their concern is that the premil view does not do justice to the way the NT speaks of the fulfillment of the OT promises in reference to Christ. In a way, though this is surely too simplistic a generalization, it's a matter of the question of progressive revelation and the relation between the testaments.
2) Of course this is all much more complicated,because there's quite a spectrum of both premil and amil beliefs!
For example, at what I'd call the center of the debate, I'll bet most premils (including those of the progressive dispensational or historic premil persuasion) are concerned that amils don't give sufficient regard to (or have a right understanding of) passages such as Isa. 65:20 and Ezek. 40-48 and Rev. 20:1-10. And, in a similar way, I'll bet that most amils (including those of the Hoekema/Riddlebarger persuasion) are concerned that premils don't give ample attention to (or have a correct interpretation of) what they regard as a simple and straightforward "this age" and "the age to come" scenario in which NT passage after NT passage places a multiplicity of events (resurrection, judgment, etc.) at the very time of the parousia, with Christ's second advent immediately ushering in the eternal state, with no such thing as sin or death or childbearing or second chances after Christ's return.
But because some premils are still of the older, classic or modified dispensational position (e.g., Darby, Scofield, etc.), and some amils are of an older school of thought that frequently to occasionally "spiritualized" prophecy (e.g., Allis, Hamilton, etc.), I think others at the far reaches of the spectrum undoubtedly have additional concerns. For example, I think classic dispensationalists assume (though wrongly) that all amils either regard God's promises as conditional or regard them as having nothing but a spiritual fulfillment; and I think they see this as a huge problem - one in which they deem all amils as not holding to the need for God to keep His promises, particulary to Israel. And I think some of the older amillenarians are concerned (rightly, as I see it - newer amils are also concerned about this as well) that extreme forms of dispensationalism perpetuate a false dichotomy between Israel as an earthly people and the church as a heavenly people, where never the twain shall meet, and wrongly assume that a future salvation for Israel (as in Rom. 11:11-32) entails a return to a nationalistic identity, perhaps even complete with a return to OT forms such as animal sacrifices.
There's undoubtedly much more that could be said, intermediate positions, yet other concerns, etc. But perhaps what I've indicated at least illustrates the dangers or problems.
3) This brings us, I think, to what are significant vs. insignificant dangers. I'd like to make the following points:
a) In one sense, though I agree with MacArthur and many others (including amils!) that escahtology is important, I tend to think that there are much more important issues than arguments about the timing and nature of future events. Jesus is coming again; in this we rejoice. So we need to keep the real priorities (cf., e.g., I Cor. 15:3ff) the priorities.
b) But in another sense, there are important issues at stake. God does keep His promises. Israel does have a future (though we may disagree about what that future entails!). Prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Believing Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. Jesus has offered the one and only sacrifice that can ever take away sin. Etc., etc., etc. So both sides (premil or amil ... or postmil), in trying to hammer out an eschatology that does justice to all the scriptural data, need to do their best to uphold what matters, and make it part of their scheme.
Despite their disagreements about some facets of the debate, I think progressive dispensationalists, historic premils, and the newer breed of amils, have much in common ... including much eschatological ground in common. This is good news. Dialogue is occurring, and consensus is taking place on many issues. When premils and amils alike can join hands not only on the doctrine of salvation, but also on the key points that concern each side (the OT and the Jews for premils, and the NT and Christ for amils), I say, "Praise God!"
I say this with the full realization that there's plenty of debate over an Isa. 65:20 or a Rev. 20:1-10. Etc. But those who are at the center of the debate, including for example the participants in Bock's "Three Views" book, can be civil and debate the issues, and stand up for what really matters to them, and yet do so without resorting to some of the foolishness that's marked many such debates. Surely these are good days to study eschatology.
c) Which leads to this: Much of the current millennial debate, nearer what I would call "the center," is about matters like the timing (before or after the parousia) and nature (identical or not to a golden age) of the millennium. Participants at this level understand that both sides are committed to God honoring His good word, and that there is a future for the Jews, and that the new heavens and earth are really where it's at in terms of the ultimate fulfillment of all of God's good promises.
And this means that many remarks, largely from extreme positions, are really off-base and not conversant with where good and profitable dialogue are taking place. It's these types of remarks (which can come from either side) that have the potential to bug the daylights out of any of us! But I trust that we can pretty easily discern such remarks for what they are.
I for one am glad to see dispensational and non-dispensational folks talking about these things. Progress is occurring, and in such circles I love to operate.
Amils do not deny the reality of the millennium of Rev. 20:1-10. Nor do amils grudgingly allow for it. Amils gladly affirm the millennium of Rev. 20! It's just that, due to what they consider to be a careful read of this passage, they disagree with premils as to the time and the nature of this millennium.
Rev. 20 is obviously not the only point of dispute. But I surely wish that we could put to rest the idea that amils (despite the terminology!) deny the millennium of Rev. 20.
Of course the problem, as it relates to extremists, is that they willingly continue to label amil theology the way they want to label it, rather than taking us at our word for what we really believe. (We can only imagine what they would think if we tried to unfairly label them.)
Again, it's these outrageous comments that often inflame our passion. Thank God that most (I hope!) folks are more reasonable.
I close with this: How thankful I am that more and more premils (Piper, Alcorns, etc.), though I disagree with their ultimate conclusion re: the millennium itself, stand arm-in-arm with many of our concerns: they're looking forward to Christ's return, readying themselves for that event, teaching that ultimate fulfillment is in the new heavens and earth (yes, there's a new earth as well as a new heaven!), etc. So may we, as amils, not commit the mistake of thinking that all premils are of the pretrib, pin-the-tail-on-the-antichrist club. To do so, in my opinion, would be to err as badly as some extreme premils. (Not that such extreme views don't exist - they do! We just need to be fair!)
If the last trump of Paul is the seventh trumpet of the Revelation, and if the seventh trumpet signals the end of the present Church age and the resurrection of the dead in Christ, it would follow that if the book of Revelation was fulfilled by 70AD, that the Church age would have ended and the resurrection of the dead in Christ would have taken place prior to 70AD. If there be any Scriptures that seem to appear to contradict the Millennial truth, it is our understanding, not that the Millennial is false.
According to Revelation 20:1-10, the millennial when Christ shall sit upon the throne of his glory is still future. The text of Matthew 25:31 proves beyond any question that there is one coming of Messiah with his angels. The following events prove this to be true:
1.) The devil has not been bound a thousand years yet.
2.) The Apostles sitting on twelve thrones judging Israel has not happened yet.
3.) The beast has not arisen yet to cut off the heads of the saints.
4.) The beast has not arisen yet to cause anyone to worship him or take his mark.
5.) These have not died and been resurrected to live on earth a thousand years.
6.) The first resurrection of the dead (physical dead) in Christ has not taken place yet.
7.) Those who have *part* that did not die as martyrs but died in Christ, have not been resurrected yet.
8.) The glorification of bodies so that the second death has no power over them has not taken place yet.
9.) The reign of Christ for one thousand years with these resurrected saints has not taken place yet.
10.) For this reign of Christ to take place he must return. He has not returned yet, therefore the Millennial has not taken place yet.
The millennial is the day of the Lord--One day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. The beginning of the Millennial is the beginning of the day of the Lord. The whole thousand years is the day of the Lord, and the end is the concluding of the day of the Lord.
I have found that discussing Scripture with amillennialists is like discussing Scripture with Campbellites. It is fruitless. How can you convince anyone of the truth when they absolutely refuse to believe what the Scripture says. Both parties would change if they simply believed the Bible.
The Reformers simply followed much of the eschatology of Rome. They brought a lot of errors of Rome, such as infant baptism, with them when they left the Harlot Church.
A.D. 250, Origen, one of the Church Fathers, conceived the idea that the words of scripture were but the ‘husk’ in which was hid the ‘kernel’ of scripture truth. At once he began to ‘Allegorize’ and ‘Spiritualize’ the Scriptures, and thus founded the school of ‘Allegorizing’ and ‘Spiritualizing’ interpreters of Scripture, from which the Church and the Bible have suffered so much."
When you teach preachers how to spiritualize and explain away the prophecies of God’s Word, don’t be surprised when they spiritualize the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and other fundamental truths of the Word of God. Where does it stop? If i don't like a particular doctrine, I can just spiritualize it. Thats not what we are suppose to do. The Bible plainly tells us when something is to be "spiritualized" or is a parable. Amillennialism and postmillennialism should take a bow, because they are largely responsible for the horrible wave of modernism now flooding the world.
If you can’t take the thousand year reign of Christ here on this earth literally, then what part of Revelation 20 can we take literally? Is Christ literal, or is He like the thousand years? Is the devil literal, or is he also just like the thousand years? No wonder that some do not believe in the judgment and in hell, they are just following and further developing the rules of interpretation laid down by amillennialists and postmillennialist. Don't have time to write more now.
"I would doubt that most premils would side with you in your attacks...... most would want to distance themselves from your remarks."
That may have been true before- and may still be for historic premils as opposed to pretrib rapture premils- but it is changing I think. Missler, several months ago in his KHouse newsletter, wrote a horribly damning article about amil thought being responsible for Hitler, and how evil and Jew hating and destructive amil is, blah blah blah.It's in the Calvary Churches now, he is so influential...then there is the devils playground, the internet- and they love Missler out there in cyber church land. Amil is no longer one position to debate among positions- it is becoming a great evil.
Hey AU.....fwiw....we spent four months in Israel a while back, my hub was interim pastor of a church there. Dumped quite a bit of money in subsequent years into some folks over there. Not to mention all the prayers. We may have been the only amils there in Israel.We loved them and pray for the Lord to hasten the great promise of Romans 11. (I also pray for God to deliver them from their dispensationalism.)
Here is an interesting group for you...Chaim,a reformed ministry to Jews in Philly recognized by the PCA. They came to my old PCA church.....so refreshing! The director has taught at both WTS in Pa and Cali.
Here is their eschatology page: :)
http://www.chaim.org/notyet.htm
You write without grace. You write as one who hates Amillers (not just our doctrine). If discussing the Scriptures with us is "useless" for you, then why are you here? Be at peace and join another blog, since this blog is filled with Amillers.
Blessings to you,
Walter
1689.com
And amillennialism is "obviously" also "founded and promoted by Satan" ... "hater of the Jews"??? Well, I guess you have the right to believe that as well, but it certainly proves my point about the way extreme premils, who are really completely outside the orbit of sound premil theory, will continue to label amil theology any way they well please, regardless of what advocates of amil theory really believe.
It almost seems pointless to continue such a discussion. But I'll make one last attempt re: AU's points:
1) Your anti-preterist remarks utterly miss the point of my view. I am not a preterist, even though I am amil.
2) The one thing the Matthew 25:31-46 passage does not allow is for a gap of 1000 years between the return of Christ to sit on His glorius throne and the final judgment of unbelievers.
3) Your numbered points 1,6,7,9,10 simply assume the truth of the premil view; they are not proof of the premil view. They are nothing but a begging of the question.
4) Your numbered points 3,4,8 (and possibly 5) could be true, and yet readily harmonized with the amil view. The premil view has no logical corner on these points.
5) Your numbered point 2 could simply apply to the eternal state (the new heavens and earth), rather than to a millennium. And Sam Storms has also written a great article reminding us that some passages that speak of the reign of Christ and His saints are, of course, speaking of the present interadvent reign of Christ in heaven - and the reality of this reign is not dependent on any particular millennial view! (Even premils could agree that martyred believers are even now in heaven with Christ. This is clear from Rev. 6 and 7, generally true from II Cor. 5 and Phil. 1, though of course debated in Rev. 20.)
6) The charge that amillennialists refuse to believe the Bible is certainly over-the-top and untrue. I believe what I believe because of what Scripture says. I'd like to think that my posts reveal my desire to have systematic theology flow out of biblical theology, and to have biblical theology flow out of biblical exegesis.
7) Your several comments about amillenarians spiritualizing Scripture are simply wrong for a number of reasons:
a) Even those who interpret the Bible in an excessively literalistic way surely understand the presence of figures of speech and metaphorical language, don't they? The same John who penned Rev. 20 gave us John's gospel with its depictions of Jesus as "the bread of life" (Jn. 6) and "the door" (Jn. 10), etc. Yet we don't take these in a wooden sense. I would imagine that a great number of such examples could be found in the Apocalypse itself. Should we say that your view leads invariably and inevitably to transubstantiation?
b) Your slippery-slope argument doesn't work. Amils, like most premils and postmils, are perfectly able to draw the line between what's literal and what's not. Besides, your suggestion that the amil view leads to a denial of Christ or of the devil or of judgment or of hell is utterly unfounded. I believe in all four! And so does every amillennialist I know!
c) More to the central point, I'm wondering how many times people like Hoekema and Riddlebarger need to say that they believe in the the fulfillment of PHYSICAL promises as well as spiritual promises ... or that they believe in the new EARTH as well as the new heaven. What a cheap shot it is to label such theologians as those who spiritualize the text when they don't do so!
8) I'm not sure what it is about the NT helping us interpret the OT, or about Scripture shedding light on itself, that's so wrong or so hard to understand.
9) Let me turn the tables for a moment. You claim that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional. I agree. I also note that it involves an everlasting possession of the land. What do you think? From what I can tell you think that this promise of the land is fulfilled in the millennium, a 1000 year, TEMPORAL period of time. What if I were to tell you that you have thus failed to take the EVERLASTING nature of this promise seriously? AND WHAT IF I WERE TO TELL YOU THAT THEREBY YOU PROVE YOURSELF TO BE ONE WHO CALLS GOD A LIAR, AND WHO HATES THE JEWS? After all, if God promised the Jews a land forever, but the Jews only have the land for 1000 years, would I not be correct in saying that you, a premillennialist, logically end up overturing God's promise and ripping such promises away from Israel?
But I will make no such charges. From what I read of your comments, it appears to me that you believe God keeps His word to the Jewish people.
I don't agree with your premil interpretation. But I will not label you like you label me.
What I absolutely and utterly fail to understand (i.e., what I cannot begin to fathom!), despite all the pro and con arguments of legitimate millennial debate, is how any amillennialist who is of the persuasion that elect/believing Jews will inherit the world forever can be accurately viewed as: (a) someone who doesn't believe God keeps His promises, (b) someone who hates the Jews, (c) someone who is illogical, (d) someone who will end up denying just about everything the Bible affirms, and (e) someone who is Satanic. Amazing, amazing, amazing.
My conclusion is that people like James and "AU" simply don't understand the real issues that concern so many of us. People can legitimately debate the issues, but ranting and raving like these two do is incredible. And like I said before, I would bet that most premillenarians would want to distance themselves from such nonsense.
I think you make a very legitimate point. Thanks. There really are some extremists out there, and their brand of premil theology has affected (I'd say adversely) many.
At the same time, I really do thank God that there can be a sane debate about the real issues. And I really do respect many of the more reasonable premillenarians. It's good to know that a lot of such reasonable folks also exist; it's encouraging!
Let me guess -- amill-ism is a sign of the end times apostasy?
All that and the antisemitism trump card.
<sigh>
This comment thread has become far too long to follow.
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
http://www.gracechurch.org/sc/default.asp
Click on "Buy Audio Downloads".
Grace and Peace,
Walter
1689.com
Does be believe in 1. Particular Redemtion (limited atonement) 2. A Federal View of the Fall (or at least a view of the fall that is simalar to the WCF) 3. The Churches position of the covenant of works and covenant of grace or is it a flatten out mono-covenantal view?
A may consider putting a $20 bounty for each question since I can't find these things in the John McArthur doctrinal statement maybe those (since they claim to be all calvinists) at GCC can find these calvinistic doctrines? If they're calvinists why can't I find these calvinistic doctrinal affermations in thier creed?
Well, their "Doctrinal Statement" has big gapping holes in it. I've discussed it with men at that church in leadership. It's not a creed nor a confession. It's a big statement of faith. And, not ALL of those at that church, either as leaders or members are Calvinists, because the sections on Atonement may be accepted by Amyrauldians. There is no statement on Repentance, and if I remember correctly, nor a statement on Saving Faith. JMac is a 5 Point Calvinist, and so are many. But NOT Covenantal. So, they could be called Dispensationl Calvinistic Credobaptists.
I would recommend saving your $60 for all three questions and just buy some good books!
:-)
By Grace,
Walter
http://www.1689.com
(The Reformed Baptist Confession Website)
:-)
Although he has 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 minutes, 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,