With All Due Respect to Dr. MacArthur . . .

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!

Update on Thursday, March 8, 2007 at 08:30AM by 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.

Comments

[Jason Rivera]

Walt,


Good idea, I did pick up good books like the new Justification book edited by Guy P. Waters and Gary Johnson plus the Justification book ed. by R. Scott Clark. If John McArthur focused on promoting those doctrinesin the justification books mentioned instead of his hobby horse dispy doctrines whe would look alot more credible as someone who was calvinistic in his soteriology.

Speaking of where in his GCC doctrinal statement/ lucy goosie creed is the upmost important doctrine of the Active Obedience of Christ or at least that doctrine expressed clearly as it is in the (WCF or 1698)????


That doctrine is at least worth a $100 bounty to find in the John MacArthur Creed found at GCC and TMS.


Blessing in Christ,
Jason Rivera

[Ed]

There is a new book coming out that, while not addressing the "pre-mill" question exclusively, gives a fascinating history of the covanantal-dispensational debate up to the "official" action taken by the PCUS in 1944. The nook is "The Dispensational-Covanantal Rift" and is by Todd Mangum. It is highly interesting for those who believe that much of the discussion on issues like this have been fruitless, often because people misunderstand the other's position or talk past each other. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand the historical significance of the development of dispensationalism and Dallas Seminary and the "tremors" of the "Modernist-Fundamentalist" debate ...

Currently, the book is only offered by Paternoster in the UK.

[Randy H.]

My Friends in Christ ,

Having tolerated the Dispensational Delusion for 32 years despite my Lutheran Father's offer of help ,and after reading Mr. Riddlebarger's Books , I must say perhaps it is time to offer Macarthur and his crowd some Stern Advice when commenting about Prophecy . SHUT UP !

[Zechariah]

I think you guys need to quit reading commentaries and start reading the Bible.

Oh, Sorry I guess that would mean we would have a whole lot of unemployed seminary Grads.

Oh, and Mr. Riddlebarger, I read your commentary on Macarthur's message at the 2007 Shepherds and cannot help but wonder why you do not have the courage to say he is wrong, instead you say it is "controversial"...Well, Mr. Riddlebarger I suspect that lukewarm stance could be the reason God in all his sovereignty is using Macarthur all around the world, and you are stuck on the White Horse Inn and Issues etc.

Cherio, Amils...Judgement is coming !

[Andrew]

I like Jesus, i think Jesus had it right when he said "(Mat 24:44 ESV) Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect".MacArthur is a very knowledgeable man but doesn't have the full package. As no man has a perfect theology until they go to glory.

Brother Andrew

[Russell Taylor]

As one who was converted under MacArthur's writing ministry, I have great respect for him. As one who has become an Amillennialist, I was surprised at him. As one who loves sound doctrine and biblical exegesis, I was challenged by him. The most agreeable thing he said was that we should strive to address eschatology the way we would the rest of the Word. Not dismissing it as a peripheral issue. With this I agree. To many reformed people lack the kind of discipline and dogma in the area of eschatology that they apply in many other areas. We should strive to interpret and teach the whole council of God's Word, including eschatology. I will take his advice and strive to take a stronger clearer stand on my eschatological position. Unfortunately, that means that I would have to say that his position is wrong. I'll pray that he'll humble himself and consider the Amil position and come to the truth in this area.

[Tyler]

I have been very interested in this post and have not yet added anything here, but I have to say that I think MacArthur may have stepped a little over his bounds in his explicit statements.

However, I have listened to about 400 hours of JM's sermons and have found him to be the most thorough Bible teacher I know to date. And as far as I have found, his eschatology is the only area in which I disagree with him.

I believe his heart is in the right place, but his words may have slipped in an unfruitful way. However, I will continue to absorb his astounding teaching and preaching as one who is humble enough eat the meat ans spit out the bones. -Tyler

[Dave]

This post and the comments about MacArthur's mischaracterization of the Amill position are now old news , but I arrived here today after searching around for Reformed critiques of John MacArthur. One of Dr. Riddlebarger's other posts which doesn't have comments enabled -- 'A Reply to John MacArthur' http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/ - - says : "One can easily see why Dr. MacArthur is so widely-respected. When it comes to the gospel, he’s on the side of the angels. When it comes to eschatology, however, I must beg to differ." So, I guess I have an objection to that line about him being on the side of the angels when it comes to the gospel. Dr. Riddlebarger, do you still think that Dr. MacArthur is "on the side of the angels" when it comes to preaching the whole gospel ? Doesn't Dispensationalism ultimately undermine the true preaching of the Gospel and do great injury to the Church and the people within the Church ? I'm really not so sure if MacArthur has actually got "the gospel" right in the barest essentials , because his books The Gospel According to Jesus and Faith Works seem to be law, law , and more Law. (my background is Lutheran , so I can't let that slide ... confusion of law and gospel is no gospel at all). Over the years I have known some people who have sat under MacArthur's preaching ... several almost lost their faith entirely because of the legalistic ethos at GCC , some of these are still estranged from the Church , those who Dr. Rosenbladt refers to as the "sad" and "mad" ones who were "broken by the Church" , and the ones who are still a GCC are elitist in their attitudes towards other Christian traditions (including Lutheran and Reformed ... of course in all fairness there are many Lutheran and Reformed folk who can give as good as they get in terms of elitism and looking down their nose at other Christian traditions, but let's not go there for now ... ) . I know MacArthur is pals with R.C. Sproul and other Reformed celebs (despite Sproul being a paedobaptist and a preterist postmill , both of which MacArthur would characterize as false teaching) so there is an air of respectability given to John MacArthur in Reformed circles, but I don't get why he is given a pass and assumed to be "on the side of the angels when it comes to the gospel" ... Dr. Sproul's mentor , Dr. John Gerstner, didn't seem to think dispensationalists were on the side of the angels. I remember years ago reading critiques of Dr. Gerstner's book "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" which said Gerstner was too hard-line ,too uncharitable towards the Dispensationalists, but I think now I am going to search out a copy and read it.