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)
Vos in his Pauline Eschatology and Biblical Theology spirited me away from my premil views and left me here in the company of Riddelbarger and Engeslma.
I will listen to Dr. Macarthur. He was one of my favorite premil authorities before my lapse into Hoeksema's and Vos' arminian eschatological camp.;-) If you have yet to read Vos, then a new world is coming to your theology. If you have already read Vos, then a reread coud only do you some good. Walter its good to meet you and talk in all christian charity.
Is JM preaching a separate salvation for the Jews?
Forgive me for not making my post clear. These are not my words, rather,it is a direct quote from The Pulpit Magazine website...The Online Magazine of the Shepherds’ Fellowship, of which John MacArthur is editor-in-chief.
I apologize for the confusion, but I do appreciate the way you corrected me :-)
Pam
It appears that you are ignorant and proud of it.
Let's see:
1) Rick Warren is also premil.
2) Rick Warren is popular.
3) So let's all jump on the premil bandwagon!
(Sorry for the sarcasm, but "Johnny Mac's" remarks are still bugging me! As much as I respect MacArthur in many ways on some issues, and as much as I've benefited from him at points, the way I see it his remarks were way out of line. To me they indicate a total lack of recognition for what Bible-believing amils really believe. And they defy good logic. The idea that amils are [or should be, if consistent] Arminian is preposterous. How one can read Vos, Hoekema, Venema, Strimple, etc., etc., etc. and come away thinking that these folks are knaves and fools who don't take the prophectic portions of Scripture seriously is beyond me. So may the debate continue. And may more folks wake up to the beautiful and simple eschatolgoy of amillennialism!)
Mac's remarks should be in your previous "Everyone's a Theologian" segment.
Amills may not intentionally be trying to pervert the scripture or be reckless about their interpretation, but they are nonetheless. People who sincerely believe amill theology are simply sincerely wrong. Alot of people are misguided in their theology. As long as amill is accepted, that will serve as proof.
As far as the tone goes, why must you believe other views are acceptable or be charitable toward those other views? There is no biblical mandate to pat bad theology on the back. In fact, the mandate is just the opposite. Paul charged Timothy that NO OTHER doctrine be taught than that which Timothy learned.
If premillenialism is right, then there is no place for amillenialism. We should press the issue and stop treating eschatology with contemt or apathy.
Except the excuse of scripture.
Brother, you should be careful of your tone so as to not offend anyone. I've loved JMac's ministry ever since college, but you have the same spirit I've encountered from many ignorant seminarians (ignorant is not stupid) who couldn't even give *ignorant ol' me* an answer.
Here are some things for your consideration;
Part of the problem today is that Dispies want everyone to believe they've been on the block a long time. The Historic Premillennial brand of Eschatology found in the early church is always being claimed by the Dispies - as if Dispensationalism existed in the early church. But the Premil brand of the early church was/is not the Dispy Premil brand. Historic Premillennialism is also so very close to the Amillennial view, and both are Covenantal. I call them almost-twin-brothers.
Without the strong teaching and leadership of the Apostles (mainly Paul), those who came after the Apostles would have easily gone back to the hermeneutics of the Pharisees and Judaizers because of pressure. For proof, look at Peter and Barnabas at Galatia. NT Judaism was a popular alternative to NT Christianity for many Jews. For proof, look at Hebrews in their context of capitulation - it didn't take long.
When Jesus said He would rebuild the temple, the Jews took Him literally - not rightly interpreting the OT (John 2:19-22). Dispy Premils have the same problem today because the force their hermeneutic upon the text, as you probably do, instead of letting Jesus correctly interpret and apply His own words.
When James quoted Amos and Jeremiah, he took those literal prophecies and applied their fulfillment to **that** era... "In order that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name", but the Dispies want to hermeneutically transport it's application OUT of **that** era and into some future era, in order to have their literal rebuilt temple. Peter in an earlier context had already stated that the Gentiles would be called by God (Acts 2:39).
Dispy Premils continue to make the same mistake many well-meaning NT Jews made. Apparently, from John 2:19-22 and Acts 15:16, the Temple/Tabernacle *has indeed been rebuilt* - but some still say that it will be built in the future (wink, wink).
No one said that the Apostolic Hermeneutic is an easy one to understand! But let's not kid anyone and think that forcing multiple fulfillments to a bankrupt hermeneutical system is the answer either.
As much as we Amils may love JMac, the spirit in which it was delivered won't help - neither the words or his tone. Anyone can light up a strawman on fire, but it's another thing to intellectually and biblically engage a brother.
I empathize with your zeal, brother. I too was once a *die-on-that-hill* Dispy. I thought I had knowledge, until I searched the Scriptures and let them determine my system for me - by God's grace. I would encourage you to read a simple little book called "The Momentous Event" by W.J. Grier. Perhaps you won't think we Amils are so *unexcusable* after you read it.
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
Don't forget your statement "If premillenialism is right, then there is no place for amillenialism" could be turned around and be stated that if amillenialism is right then there is no room for premillenialism.
Why be charitable? If I have all knowledge and yet have not love then I am nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2-3).
Grateful for His Grace,
Steve
Amills get the first point right. It is the second point that amills are reckless with.
I understand now. Thanks for clarifying!
:-)
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
Consider this also, heresies and heretics are to be rejected per Titus 3:10-11. But with you we will exercise the "gentleness and patience" of 2 Timothy 2:24-25.
Sola Gratia,
Walter
1689.com
You can't steal the Historic Premil position of the early church and make it your Dispensational Premil position (see my post to you above). The consumated reign of Jesus Christ would come in the Eternal State, as testified not by the *early church*, but by the Apostolic NT. You won't be able to prove otherwise, apart from your presuppositions.
By Grace Alone,
Walter
1689.com
http://lioncrestinn.blogspot.com/2007/03/should-we-respect-false-teachings.html