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)
You are correct in saying that your kind of Baptist tradition should not be equated entirely with Anabaptism.
However, to say that you are Reformed, "except of course for your Infant Baptism" is just an attestation of ignorance of what Reformed theology, history, piety and practice are. Reformed theology is Covenant Theology, and Covenant Theology is Reformed Theology. Baptists simply do not adhere to Covenant Theology as expressed by the Reformers, and therefore by definition they are not Reformed, regardless of whether the Reformers were right or wrong.
There were no Reformers - whether it would be Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, Olevianus, Ursinus, Vermigli, Bucer, Beza, Cranmer, Turretin, Voetius, or anybody else - that would have recognized Baptists churches as true churces, let alone Reformed.
Therefore, "Reformed Baptist" is as much as an oxymoron as "Anabaptist Catholic."
By the way, to say that "there is no command is Scripture to justify [infant baptism]" is to easily ignore the whole Scriptural testimony (including assertion and inference) as well as all the Reformers, not to say 1500 of catholic theology. Clearly, this flippant statement is another clear attestation of what Echo mentioned above - some Baptists have no idea what they are talking about.
Likewise, if Dave Hunt and Chuck Missler would write books and articles about you saying you hold to doctrines of demons from the pit of hell...well, I'd say you are Reformed :)
Hubby and I are in a PCA church where they baptize the babies and we study the Westminster confession. I also think we have the best pastor in the entire world. Regarding this original discussion we are amil. And we are avid readers, especially the dead white guys who wrote good Reform books, from Owen and Calvin on down.
Hubby and I also happen to be baptists,and we all get along just fine. And we fully embrace the concept that Reform doctrine is more than TULIP- it is covenant theology-as Baptists.
And I can guarantee you that Hunt and Missler would throw my entire church into the heretic and error oven...credo and paedo alike.
I too get along fine with my Baptist and broadly evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ. That does not mean that theologically I am one of them.
I can also assure you that the Roman Catholic church (as one example) would consign both my Reformed tradition, as well as Hunt and Missler, into the same " heretic and error oven." And yet we are certainly not the same!
I also read baptist authors (sometimes ...) and I love Spurgeon. But clearly I am not a Baptist.
And if you embrace covenant theology while claiming to be Baptist, then I assure you that you have misunderstood either or both. They are mutually exclusive, regardless of where the truth is. The Reformers were *unanimous* in affirming that there is no covenant theology without baptism as a sacrament, a sign and seal of the covenant to be administered to the faithful *and their children.*
This is explicitly stated - as well as credobaptism explicitly rejected - in all Reformed standards, be it the Heidelberg Catechism (q.74), the Belgic Confession (article 34) the Westminster Confession (article 28), the Shorter and Larger Catechisms (q. 95 & 166 respectively), the Augusburg Confession (article 9), the 39 Articles (article 27) not to mention other Reformed confessions circulating during the 16th and 17th centuries. Calvin, Turretin, Luther and Melanchthon - all unanimously affirm that the covenant includes infants, and that is unlawful to deny them membership in the visible church through the sign of regeneration in baptism. They affirm this not as an aside or detail, but as an expression of the very essence of Covenant Theology.
Now, if I wanted to call myself a Baptist, while affirming exactly what all the Reformers affirmed concerning baptism, my Baptist brethren would be justified in saying that regardless of what I think or say, I am definitely not a Baptist.
That is not to say that I don't stand closer to Baptists who are Calvinistic (in whatever sense that applies, whether in soteriology or eschatology) than to virtually anybody else in Christendom - after all, we affirm the same gospel, which has been but lost today. They are my brothers, and they live next door.
But that does not mean I'm a Baptist, neither does it mean that Baptists are Reformed.
Before misusing Scriptural verses to try to deny the legitimacy of Creeds and Confessions as statements of what the Bible teaches, and as means of defining who we are and who we are not, you might want to take a crash introductory course on the historical and theological rationale for them.
Maybe you can start here:
http://www.oceansideurc.org/the-heidelblog/2007/2/9/why-the-focus-on-the-confessions.html
and here:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/confbib.php
Not to mention that the tens of thousands of Protestants who were being massacred by the Roman Catholic church in the 15th century would have had something to say to you if you quoted that passage to them as they were being tortured and executed for their confessions of faith.
Let's see: after my long post arguing that, according to the historical sense of "Reformed," and according to all the Reformed confessions, Baptists are not Reformed and Reformed are not Baptists, you post a passage speaking of Church unity. Forgive me if I inferred that you thought the passage should be applied against discussions of confessions of faith that define boundaries between Christians!
I won't do your work for you. If you don't know the answer, clearly you are unfamiliar with the Reformed tradition (or catholic for that matter). I gave you a link to a small blog discussion and another to a substantive bibliography on the topic. Start there.
I was out having lunch with a brother from a Pedobaptist church, and I'm sure glad he doesn't think of *Reformed Baptists* as you might...
But let me answer a few things. Here is what a Reformed Baptist is;
1) Covenantal
2) Puritanical
3) Sabbatarian
4) Confessional
5) Regulative Principle of Worship Subscriber
We also hold to the 5 Solas of the Reformation as well as the 5 Points of Calvinism.
So, while you may not like the fact that we *Reformed Baptist* say we are Reformed, and while you don't like the fact that our heritage is just as much in the Reformation, and perhaps more Puritanical than yours, we are still *Reformed Baptists*, whether or not *we* fit into your *covenant theology box* or not.
We *Reformed Baptists* have reformed the covenant theology of the Reformers, and yours. And we paid the price of literal, physical persecution for it, or have you forgotten history?
You may wish to read "Baptists, The Only Thorough Religious Reformers" by John Quincy Adams to refresh your memory of the persecution of Credobaptists before the Act of Religious Toleration of 1689 in England. All the *1st London Baptist Confession of 1644* pastors went into hiding until... 1689 when they wouldn't lose their heads for being Credobaptists. If you don't believe me, please READ that small historical book. Until 1689, we Credobaptists were hunted down just like the Puritans and many others. And let's not forget that the *1st London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644* was revised in *1646* - the same year the Westminster was published.
So, while we Credobaptists didn't have the spotlight on them during the Reformation the way the *Reformers* did (you know why now, right?), our heritage is the same. You are also right to say no Reformer would have recognized a *Credobaptist* church, because our church Polity is not the same as yours. That should make sense to you if you understand Puritanical and Baptistic Polity. I hope you understand now *why* we were persecuted. To hear your argument simply lets me know you don't know much of *RB* History, or Polity.
So, while I respect you here on this Pedobaptist blog, please get your facts straight about us RBs. After all, if we are going to ask this of John MacArthur regarding his wrong statements about Amils, then I ask *you* to get your facts right about Reformed Baptists.
As for the Scripture proof/command to baptize a baby, please do what Dr. R.C. Sproul and Dr. Robert Godfrey did for me when I asked them the same question personally in Pasadena in the late 90s. Ignore your *tradition* and give me one command in Scripture. In classic humility, both of these men smiled and politely said, "We can't". And wonder of wonders, they did not hurl abuse at me for calling myself *Reformed*!
So, in times of peace when we are no longer persecuting one another over the issue of *baptism*, it's ok for you to accept a *Reformed Baptist* as a brother in Christ. Stop trying to say *we* aren't *Reformed*, or have no claim on the heritage or name. And remember your history of persecution. These are my recommendations to you.
And if we add a little humility to all this, we will get along fine.
Saved By Free Grace,
Walter
1689.com
I understand your position, it is logical and historical and you articulate it well. And some folks I know would refer to my type as "Grudemite/Piperite", instead of "Reform." I understand that.
I have read a bit of Mormon history and theology, and a true Mormon man MUST be polygamous to be true to the original prophets. But it really is not helpful to say the rest of them today are not Mormons, even though they do not abide by this central command. They embrace so much of Smith/Young, etc that it is best to just call them all Mormons despite their failure (except the strictest fundies) to embrace polygamy.
Likewise, my type fails to embrace one thing that was part of original Reformation theology- infant baptism. And you can reject us as not true to the pure teachings of the fathers of Reform faith. You are correct. I agree. But in discussions with people in the evangelical world, outside the narrow picky debates on a thread like this, it is really best to call us Reform. Or at least Reform Baptist. Kind of like calling a monogamous guy in Salt Lake a Mormon, even if techically he has departed from the original revelation. Just my opinion.
Regarding covenant theology, well, we'll never agree. It's way more than infant baptism. It is an understanding of the purposes of God starting from the very Garden of Eden and extending to the present day. It is why Covenant theology is a death blow to Calvinist dispensationalism. Covenant theology IS Reform theology. And a person can embrace the great promise that children are "set apart" because of believing parents, without baptizing them. I can admire and respect Horton w/o baptizing babies. Maybe that is hard for you to accept, but it is true. And I have to admit that when I see Presbys who won't let kids have communion, the covenant meal, while pushing infant baptism as a sign of the covenant, well, it seems kind of hypocriical to me. But I guess this is a can of worms ( and NO I am not a Doug Wilson Federal Visionist either).
Maybe "Reformed" is copyrighted.
I don't know why you bring up the issue of persecution, since I mentioned it to another person who was attempting to deny the legitimacy of creeds and confessions. My arguments regarding the reasons why Baptists are not Reformed have nothing to do with issues of persecution. Even the Anabaptists, from whom you (justifiably) wish to disassociate yourself were often severely persecuted.
As to your liberal use of asterisks in your post, particularly when emphasizing *my* position or views, let me remind you again that I quoted from all the major Reformed and Reformational standards. It's clearly not *my* position, but the unanimous position of Reformation (excluding the radicals) regarding baptism.
As to R.C. and Godfrey, I know both men. You might have misuderstood what they told you. If they said "I can't" when asked for a direct command from the New Testament, they meant that in the same sense that we can't give a verse that says that God is a Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit, co-equal and co-eternal, and that Jesus Christ has two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. It does not mean that this is not what the Bible teaches, and anybody who denies that is no catholic Christian. It simply means that there is no verse stating it quite that way. Neither Godfrey nor R.C. are paedobaptist because they think it is a good tradition without solid biblical support. They both unequivocally assert that if one is a credobaptist, he is simply biblically wrong.
Finally, as to your accusations that I am "hurling abuse" at Baptists, and your exhortation that "it's ok for you to accept a *Reformed Baptist* as a brother in Christ," you might have missed what I said in my post:
"That is not to say that I don't stand closer to Baptists who are Calvinistic (in whatever sense that applies, whether in soteriology or eschatology) than to virtually anybody else in Christendom - after all, we affirm the same gospel, which has been but lost today. They are my brothers, and they live next door.
But that does not mean I'm a Baptist, neither does it mean that Baptists are Reformed."
Maybe you should read things more carefully, including all the Reformers and all the Reformed confessions.
By the way, I too have to leave now, and coincidentally I'll be meeting with brothers in Christ who are Baptist.
Blessings to you!
I don't think "Reformed" is copyrighted.
:-)
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
I agree with you that Baptists like yourself (as you describe yourself) are very close to Reformational theology, particularly given the modern theological landscape. But I even find it interesting that people like Walter, who so passionately wants to call himself Reformed and Baptist, would probably want to disassociate himself from premillennialists with a hint of charismatic flavor - people such as Grudem and Piper (both of whom I greatly admire).
Central to my arguments is that infant baptism is not incidental to Covenant Theology. This is what Baptists often miss. Infant baptism does not equal Covenant Theology, and yet it is at the central core of it, so that Covenant Theology cannot be had without infant baptism. There is a modal distinction, like the sides of a triangle. And all Reformers did argue that.
In relation to what the anonymous said above, it is not a frivolous matter of copyright. It is a matter of reponsible theological and historical identification, without which all theological categories, piety, and practice in the Church lose their meaning.
This is all for me. Gotta go!
I have no problem with the Reform creeds and confessions, they are wonderful. The problem I have is coming to terms with the divisions within the Church- the true church, the Bride of Christ. Is it because of pride, or that we are not bearing one another in love or what?