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)
I'm kinda different. I'm a student at a SBC seminary. Not Southern...more Southwestern-ly (hint).
I'm calvinist. I'm Amill.
Your surprised. lol (just don't anybody tell Dr. Patterson-I'm close to graduating and don't wanna be well..you know)
My point is that there is a growing number of baptists even who are leaving the dispy/premill view. There are several I know of in seminary (even covenental-amill profs).
Tho I have been a fan of JM for some time and have friends at the conf, I have to break ranks with him on this point, if what has been quoted of him to this point.
Hope I didn't freak anybody out..lol
Soli Deo Gloria,
Aaron
There's nothing like a string of pronouncements with no justification whatsover for what you said.
Let me turn the tables, by employing your method, and changing a few words...
"MacArthur's comments were NOT on the money. People have GOOD REASON for not being premillenial.
PREMILS may not intentionally be trying to pervert the scripture or be reckless about their interpretation, but they are nonetheless. People who sincerely believe PREMIL theology are simply sincerely wrong. Alot of people are misguided in their theology. As long as PREMIL is accepted, that will serve as proof.
If AMILLENNIALISM is right, then there is no place for PREMILLENNIALISM. We should press the issue and stop treating eschatology with contempt or apathy."
How would such comments strike you?
---
For the record, I have no desire to be mean-spirited about the millennial debate - although, to be sure, I don't refrain from poking a little fun toward premillennialists in light of MacArthurs's comments. Furthermore, I really have benefited from MacArthur's service to the body of Christ through the years.
However:
1) MacArthur's recent remarks make no sense to me, at several levels. How he can imply that amils don't take eschatology as seriously as premils, and how he can link amil eschatology with Arminianism, etc., leads me to the conclusion that he, like all too many other premillennialists, is fighting old amil/premil battles and not engaging the debate where it's really at. I wrote my initial and (to me) most important comments prior to seeing Kim's conclusion, and I agree with Kim. How one can read Hoekema, Riddlebarger, etc. with understanding and come away thinking that they are somehow unconcerned about how God's plan for the ages unfolds, or that they somehow deny or spiritualize Scripture, is incomprehensible to me.
2) In that MacArthur, in many respects, seems to embrace a classic or modified dispensationalism, one that is not only premil but also pretrib, I would challenge him and others of this persuasion as follows: (a) with respect to old time dispensationalism: Eph. 2/3 and Heb. 8-10; (b) with respect to a pretrib rapture: I Thes. 1/2; (c) with respect to premil theory: I Cor. 15 and II Pet. 3. I realize that good people can disagree about these things. But to categorically say or imply that, for example, amils somehow pervert Scripture and/or engage in reckless interpretation and/or fail to care about the end times, strikes me as utterly false. Again, I'm not claiming the premils are off their rockers. What I am saying is that there's surely someting wrong with the way amils have been labeled.
I say all of this as one who once devoured the premil, pretrib works of Walvoord, Pentecost and Ryrie (although not LaHaye and many others) ... for decades. I was a totally committed dispensationalist. But I changed my mind because of, as I indicated, the force of Scripture. Again, I'm not saying that I'm beyond error in this shift! But I am saying that I personally struggle with the kinds of comments you and MacArthur made.
My first thought was that I am glad you are not so ashamed of your position that you want equal respect for it.
If you believe something, stand up for it, teach it, preach it, proclaim it, defend it, and don't back down. It will mean that others are wrong.
It is better to actually stand firm in one's beliefs than it is to be a kind of agnostic toward them.
I am not intentially brash or meanspirited in the discussion. I have read Kim's book and other amill books and articles. They are all weak and not thought through very well. That is my position. If you disagree, fine. At least stick up for it.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
I think you are missing the point others are trying to help you see. We both come from different presuppositions and different hermeneutics, so answering *yes* or *no* to your question really isn't an answer. Your question is not an issue for Amillers because we affirm the position is not correct. But that's not an answer either. The link you provided could easily be used for or against any theological position, because it *presupposes* a right theological position - and who will deny a *right* position. The real question is *is your position* the *right one*?
Now, there are different ways to handle disagreements. But disagreement is not sin. We only disfellowship heretics. Error is not the same as heresy, unless you are one of them *Fightin' Fundies*. If you care to engage in texts of Scripture, then we can have as animated a discussion as we can handle. The purpose would be to let Scripture speak for itself, without imposing our hermeneutics *upon* them, but deriving our hermeneutics *from* them. This is my charge against Dispensationalism - it forces its hermeneutic *upon* Scripture. And really, a public forum is not a place for attitudes. If we were in a private room, sure, let the men be men and let's enjoy a hearty debate, but unless either of us can accuse the other of heresy, we must still come away from this public forum with our tenacious convictions *as brothers in the Lord*. Do you agree?
By Christ,
Walter
1689.com
I concur about the need to take a stand. And I think that I've stuck up for the amil position again and again ... probably a few too many times by eating so much space at this site!
But what I'm sticking up for now (and I think pretty strongly and relentlessly) is that I think MacArthur's remarks were wrong. They don't make sense; they are wrong. Period.
And for the record (again!), Kim's book is not weak and the arguments for amil theory are not weak. The evidence for the amil view and against the premil view is an eschatological avalanche.
There, is that taking a stand?
I should add to myself...
Your question is not an issue for Amillers because we affirm the *Dispy Premil* position is not correct.
There, I feel much better!
:-)
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
quote:
( Sorry it took so long to make this point. After reading The Man of Sin and The God of Promise, we read an article by the late Edmund P. Clowney, past president of Westminster Theological Seminary, [http://www.edmundclowney.com/] called ‘The Final Temple’ [http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/finaltemple.htm] – and WE FINALLY, REALLY GOT IT!)
(My wifely anointing to throw out mildewy old papers in basement boxes probably intersected it in the distant past :) )
Your caricature of the "Reformed Baptist" was funny. But if anyone here has exhibited that nasty spirit, it hasn't been any RBs. We don't *separate* over every *jot and tittle*. You are probably thinking of them *KJV-Only, Dispensational-Premil-Pretrib, Fightin' Fundy Baptists*.
:-)
A *Reformed Baptist*,
Walter
1689.com
Your arguments here don't have any substance - neither do your posts at your own blog. Your just ranting. And, at your blog, you’re pretty much charging Amil’s with heresy (you write, “false teachings”).
So James, do you think Amillennialism is heresy?
Perhaps you just think Amillennialism is in grave error. Tell us how.
What are the promises of God that we Amil’s don’t believe in or deny?
Give us something we can chew on and debate – anyone can say a theological viewpoint is wrong – but you’re not backing it up. And saying “the early church believed in an earthly reign of Christ upon the earth,” however redundant, doesn’t do it for me. The early church was wrong about a lot of things. Not every theologian in Church history has been right about every single doctrine -
There's tons of people who are Calvinistic and amillennial (hmmm... I think KR comes to mind!).
There's tons of people who are Arminian and premillennial (Hunt, LaHaye, Hagee, etc. - what a crowd!).
There's even many people who are Calvinistic and premillennial (Piper, S. Lewis Johnson, etc. ... ah, yes: JM).
Question...
Just who is both a bona fide Arminian and a bona fide amillennialist???
I had to read Charles Ryrie's History of Premillennialism. Ryrie would have us believe the church Fathers when referring to 1000 years were all dispensationalists.
Talk about a stretch! The irony is Ryrie and other dispensationalists certainly don't read the church fathers "literally".
We do find evidence of a Historical Premillenialism but Dispensational Pre-Mil w/ a secret coming, followed by 7 years of Tribulation period etc. etc.?
Please, please.
These guys can't even interpret the history of Pre-millenialism much less the Amil position!
How many times has he been invited to Ligonier with those who are not Pre-Mil?
And how many times have our folks embraced him because he teaches a sotierology that is monergistic and not synergistic?
And then he goes off on us like we are nuts or liberals?
JM, has forgotten back in the 80's it was his own IFB folks who called him in and were ready to church him, they were actually calling him a heretic, charging him with adding works to grace alone, but not we Reformed folks who are Amil. Someone should remind JM of this.
JM, if he really wants to take a stand, he should go after the absolute ridiculous Hermeneutical gymnastics, and jumping through circles by those in the Pre-Mil camp. He should be attacking the eschatology of LaHaye, Van Impe, Hagee, Perry Stone etc.
Very disappointing indeed.
"Amills get the first point right. It is the second point that amills are reckless with."
Why? Why would thinking that Christ's second coming is a single event that ends this age and inaugurates the age to come preclude Jesus hanging around here for a while?
Reckless? Does dispensational premillenialism survive the application of Occam's Razor?
Amills get the first point right. It is the second point that amills are reckless with."
I am amil.
I also believe that after the millennium, after Jesus comes back, after the day of judgement.....
....there will be a new heavens and a new earth,and Jesus will indeed reign on the new earth, and we will be with Him.
I fail to see any problem at all here.
You wrote: "Steve, if premillenialism is correct, would Paul have treated amillenialism with kindness or contempt? I think we all know."
By this I think you believe Paul would be contemptuous about amillenialism. I'm not sure he would have divided the church over this issue........ yes he may have explained what is now an issue which divides, but I don't think he would have stuck the knife in... I think you are missing the point - the question that Paul was firm/adamant/strident/unwavering/contemptuous about was the gospel of justification by faith through grace alone, through Christ alone. Yes - if you add to the salvation by Christ/grace/faith alone - you were labelled anathema. Grace alone - not by works etc....
What you are doing here James though is trying to invoke Paul as a condemner of amillenialism. Quite frankly you are off track wrt invoking Paul and being divisive and also quite frankly uncharitable to those who hold different opinions to those of yourself and maybe some 'high flyers'. There are much learned thinkers - great names throughout the history of the church who hold stridently to a,pre, or postmil.... So be it. There are the same divisions between paedo or credo baptists .... so be it. Thankfully my justification is not bound by theology of eschatalogy or baptism ... even though the word "heretic" has been bandied about on these secondary issues.
I don't believe it is a gospel issue in the sense to live or die for..... justification by faith is though, and throughout the history of the church there are those who gave their lives for the sake of Christ and His glorious gospel and not the pope.
I believe I hold to a rationally scripturaly derived position on eschatology. That happens to be amillenial. (And so do many learned godly men and women.... and you would say the same in your camp.....) . If I happen to be incorrect - that will be shown at the last day.
(What does scare me though is a theology of eschatology which helps drive the current middle east unrest. But that discussion might be for another time and for more learned people than myself to bring up... help Kim!)
AMEN!
What you said is precisely what many premils, with all their criticism, fail to understand.
I went hunting to see if I could find a long article online that Randy Alcorn wrote about living on the new earth in his Eternal Perspectives newsletter.(I'm not sure what other positions he holds theologically;I hope I don't get jumped on if he isn't very Reform.)
But this is a real nice quote:
"My new nonfiction book HEAVEN is in some ways the most important book I've written, and certainly it is the most direct and thorough treatment of the biblical subject of Heaven. I emphasize looking forward to the New Earth, as 2 Peter 3:13 tells us we're supposed to be doing...but which, due to our misconceptions about Heaven as a nonmaterial realm where we'll live in a disembodied state, we don't. We're made to live as physical beings, not just spiritual, and on a real earth, which is exactly what the Bible says we'll do after the resurrection, and after the millennium. Somehow we've failed to grasp this clear biblical teaching, and our view of eternal life has been distorted and impoverished."
http://www.faithfulreader.com/features/15_alcorn_randy.asp