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)
It's pretty good as an introduction into the real issues concerning millenarianism.
But to be amill, premil, or post mil or other is not the gospel, so he is still my brother in the Lord--Paul would not have come down heavy on this unless it affected the gospel.
Although I'm convinced that the amil position is the best fit with all Scripture, I do respect the views of Alcorn, Piper and others who are premil - though not of the dispensational premil variety. These premils view much biblical prophecy and many descriptions of eternity as do amils.
Alcorn's popular book on heaven is certainly not the first to emphasize the new heavens and earth, and he frequently quotes amils such as Hoekema. (In fact he quotes several Reformed heavyweights.) Most importantly, Scripture itself speaks of the regeneration (Mt. 19:28), restoration (Acts 3:21), redemption (Rom. 8:19-22), reconciliation (Col. 1:20) and renewal (II Pet. 3;13; Rev. 21:1ff) of all things, in heaven and on earth, and of the summing up of all things in Christ in heaven and on earth (Eph. 1:10), when God's will shall be done on earth as in heaven (Mt. 6:10).
Amils in the Hoekema/Riddlebarger school of thought can thus not only speak of Jesus returning to the earth, but also of Him establishing an everlasting kingdom upon the (new) earth (as per Gen. 17:8; II Sam. 7:13,16; Psa. 89:4; Dan. 2:44; 7:14,18,27).
Many premils, by stuffing and cramming the fulfillment of essentially all prophecy into a future millennium, simply cannot do justice to this eternal nature of God's kingdom.
To me it's refreshing to see the newer amil (and newer premil) emphasis on both the body and the spirit with respect to Christians, and on both earth and heaven with respect to the cosmos. This holistic picture of glory, along with the eternal nature of glory, is one of many reasons why I think that amil theory does justice to Scripture. And when one adds to this the evidence for a great number of eschatological events coinciding with the parousia, then the amil theory beats out the premil theory.
There is obviously some confusion as to what to call people like Macarthur. Obviously you can't call them Reformed. I suggest the acronym
ABCD
AMERICAN
BAPTIST
CALVINIST
DISPENSATIONALIST
That's ABCD
The way you have framed the argument, I agree. However, I would suggest that the visible return of Christ is a gospel issue worth dying for. Unfortunately, we fail to see how much agreement there is on this issue between us and choose, instead, to magnify the disagreements.
Though I have a serious disagreement with MacArthur on this one, I will continue to love him as a brother and commend him as a courageous preacher.
Regards,
Chuck
1689 Baptist
Arkansas
ABCD... that's BRILLIANT!!!
:-)
However, JMac may not go for the AB part because of the *American Baptist Association*. They have a Synergistic Regeneration stance... from what I could gather from their website. I don't think JMac would go for that. But he might.
Monergistically Yours,
Walter
1689.com
"I agree. However, I would suggest that the visible return of Christ is a gospel issue worth dying for."
Absolutely! Can't wait sometimes.... new heavens, new earth, new creation fully realised ...... yes it is a life and death issue.....How could I be so stupid!
ABCD"
Do you mean they are in the pre-school learning their ABCD, to become reformed when they start on proper doctrine?
I regret any hurt feelings over my remarks. I am sorry to have been an offense. My comments were not intended to speak of all reformed baptists. And they were not intended to condemn.
The intent was to speak honestly about how reformed baptists make the reformed feel, and then remind the reformed that we're actually ALL properly characterized that way.
Sorry if that wasn't clear. I could have sworn it was. All the hurt feelings was a surprise.
E
PS By the way, Christians, God is your only judge, so don't feel the need to acquit yourself on a blog.
And indeed, to my mind the vital matter is that we believe in a literal, physical return of Our Lord 'in like manner' as He ascended. 'The resurrection of the body and the life everlasting' in a new heavens and earth. Not that the details of the second coming aren't important, but that they are secondary matters wisely not included in the historic Reformed Confessions.
Highland,
While my post looked like a rant, I was trying to say that it actually wasn't, even though it gave voice to how some reformed sometimes feel about reformed baptists.
However, I do feel pretty strongly that reformed baptists have not yet thrown off the chains of dispensationalism completely, if that's where they come from. In the case of earlier, pre-dispensationalism days, it was a result of not quite throwing off the Anabaptist influence completely.
I'm not saying that reformed baptists ARE dispensationalists, I'm saying that dispensationalism has a remaining influence on their view of baptism. It is certainly tolerable, but that's the deal. I'm really sorry, but I wouldn't be true to what I think the Bible teaches if I didn't think this way. Because to me, believer only baptism is an error, while the Bible teaches infant baptism. I don't think it's a big deal - although, from my earlier post you'll see me admitting that sometimes it's a bigger deal than it needs to be - but it's still an error. It's wrong. There's a wrong view of baptism behind it. Don't you think that I have a wrong view of baptism? I suppose if you thought about it, you'd probably think that our practice of infant baptism is the result of some leftovers from Rome or something. That's not the case, but if you're honest with yourself, that's probably what you think.
But I have some very good friends who are reformed baptists. I regret their view of baptism, and I actually think it's really important, but they are my brothers, far more so than even some in the reformed denominations who think that justification is by faith and works. So, I mean, this isn't the most important fight or whatever, but I think it's worth discussing.
Let me say it again. I didn't let myself go. Re-read my post. I was giving voice to what the reformed often feel, but ended with saying that we're all the same when you get down to it, because we're all convinced we know what we're doing. When I say "we" I include myself. So while I admit that I think believer only baptism is an error, I also admit that I'm pretty screwed up in my sinful thinking, as are we all.
My WHOLE POINT was to remind the reformed to be humble when they are tempted to be frustrated at the reformed baptists! Surely you can appreciate the surprise I received when I saw the responses!
But that's what I get for being subtle.
E
See, I said:
But at the end of the day, all of us have the same a priori presupposition: "I know what I'm doing."
E
An a priori presupposition is a fancy way of describing an assumption we all have before we even enter an academic or theological discussion. We always assume, "I'm right" and it takes a colassal effort to overcome that.
E
http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/finaltemple.htm
Wayne, thanks for the beautiful post. We have about a gazillion Piper tapes around here and I had no idea he was premil. Very educational.....I mean,this means you can be wrong about the mil, seeing as amil is right :), but still entirely focused on the glory and supremacy of God.
Thank to all....an interesting thread!
"Neither the Lutherans nor the Calvinists were premillennialists. In addressing 'the error of the chiliasts (millenarians)' in section 3.25.5 of the 'Institutes,' Calvin expresses his opinion that 'their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error, does not support them.' "
It doesn't sound to me like Calvin would be too agreeable to premil theory, should he still be alive today. He may have been ahead of his time in more ways than one. Certainly ahead of premils who speak so as to reveal that they're unfamiliar with any current amil views.
I'm a Reformed Baptist. I accept your apology. I would recommend that you first study what Reformed Baptists believe. Try my webpage; http://www.1689.com.
Study some Reformed Baptist history. I think you'll find that NO Reformed Baptist is Dispensational. Perhaps you've been incorrectly instructed. You see, you lump the Anabaptists and the Reformed Baptists together, and then make a faulty conclusion. Reformed Baptists are Amil, Postmil, and Premil. Of course, there will be on occassion those who are *reforming* out of their old General Baptist doctrine (Arminianism) and perhaps their old Dispensational Eschatology, and *they* might call themselves Reformed Baptists, but as many who are Reformed know, these would be better described as Calvinistic Baptists, a la John MacArthur. Studying the history is crucial to seeing our like-mindedness, except of course for your Infant Baptist - which by the way... there is no command is Scripture to justify that position.
:-)
But really, if you take the Westminster Confession and the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689, you will see very MUCH doctrinal unity. We can rejoice in what we believe together, and on occassion, enter into hearty debate without using strawman arguments.
...and yes, we all have presuppositions.
Grace and Peace,
Walter
1689.com
Reformed Baptists have been practicing Credobaptism long before the Dispies came on the block. As a matter of fact, we argue that Credobaptism has been around not since after the Reformation, but it started with the Apostles. The conditions of repentance and faith were even present in the *Baptism of John* (John the first *Reformed* Baptist)!
:-)
Baptisticly Yours,
Walter
1689.com
Jesus did not teach us that God is our only judge. He first taught us to not judge in *hypocrisy*. He also taught us to judge according to the judgment of Scripture and not our own false judgments. He commanded, "...judge with a righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Therefore, we are supposed to judge one another's words and actions according to the judgment of Scripture.
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com