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)
Can you give scriptural refutation of Amil?
"One need only to look to the heretic Origen to learn about the bizarre and mystical manner in which he sought to understand the bible. Not coincidentally, he was a universalist. Amills who are not universalist are not even consistent with their own position. So many do not even know why though."
If I were to even attempt to try and list all the laws of formal and informal logic this breaks, I'd be here all day. Which I won't.
I'd say though that you must be close to a Guinness Book record of packing the greatest amount of fallacies in the least number of words.
Seriously.
I brought up the issue of the persecution of Credobaptists by the Pedobaptists because *they* did not like Credobaptists to associate with *them*. From your post, it seems *you* don't like us RBs to call ourselves *Reformed*.
The unanimous position of the Reformers is precisely what the Credobaptists tried to continue to reform, but got persecuted for.
With regard to R.C. and Robert, there is a difference between a *command* and a *statement* in Scripture. The two are not the same and I don't believe your example holds. The difference between the covenantalism of Pedobaptists and Credobaptists is primarily a hermeneutical one - and I think both men understood that, as well as my question. Again, my point was that *those two Pedobaptist good men* did not deny me my heritage as a *Reformed Baptist* simply because our hermeneutics differ.
If you say I falsely equated a denail to the RB heritage by you as hurling abuse. Please forgive me. But that's how an RB reads a statement such as yours, "...you aren't Reformed!" Well, our ears kind of hurt at that point for a reason and we assimilate the same abuse we suffered during the Reformation... "You're not Reformed! Off with your heads!" And we've been defending ourselves since.
So, will you stop telling me I'm not Reformed? I don't care if *Baptists* are not *Reformed*. Some of them are Semi-Pelagian to the core. But will you stop saying *Reformed Baptists* are not Reformed?
By Grace Alone,
Walter, A Reformed Baptist
1689.com
You need to retract the following statement;
"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)."
How in the world would you know who I would disassociate from? Did you ask me? Please, tell me where I have stated this, or put away the straw. I'm visiting this blog not because of Grudem or Piper, but because of the innacuracies that John MacArthur made yesterday about Amils. And you are now perpetuating more inaccuracies and imputing motives to *me* I do not hold. Is that Reformed?
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
My point was that even Baptists who want to identify themselves as Reformed often do not agree among themselves. If you, while subscribing to the London Confession, wants to call yourself "Reformed Baptist" in the same sense that Carolyn calls herself a "Reformed Baptist" while also labeling herself as a "Grudemite/Piperite", go right ahead. Forgive me if I incorrectly assumed one could subscribe to the London Confession and say he is an amillennialist and yet say he is a "Grudemite/Piperite" (i.e., premillenilist, non-cessasionist, etc.)
Although I must say you seem a bit too uptight. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
And, no, you are not Reformed.
Now I'm REALLY outta here.
I was simply making statements based on facts I know. I feel no need to lay out a treatise for you. Feel free to study the issue.
Hi James,
Can you give scriptural refutation of Amil?
James replies:
Pick a text, any text.
It could easily be said of Pedobaptists that you too do not agree amongst yourselves. How many times have the Presbys split historically? But *that* is not the issue. You are simply throwing up a red herring.
You haven't asked me if Carolyn and I agree to the same points of theology. That's also not the *issue*. Another red herring.
The history of the 2nd LBC of 1689 is cessationist. And while I can respect a man like Piper, it doesn't mean *I'm* a continuationist in contradiction with the 1689 Confession.
Who said he "could subscribe to the London Confession and say he is an amillennialist and yet say he is a "Grudemite/Piperite" (i.e., premillenilist, non-cessasionist, etc.)"? Where are you getting this silliness? Another red herring.
Uptight? Hmmm, is this how you treat your guests in your home? "Hi, I'm a Reformed Baptist." "No, you're not Reformed!"
:-(
Just read the book, "Baptists, The Only Thorough Religious Reformers" by John Quincy Adams, and you just might Reform some more. I think your are in need of it.
Reformed, and Always Reforming,
Walter
1689.com
It seems you are a bit confused.
Carolyn told RR she is a Reformed Baptist of the ""Grudemite/Piperite" kind. He replied to her that other "Reformed Baptists" such as yourself would be inclined to say, "hey, Grudem, Piper - that's not Reformed Baptist!" These men are premillenialist and non-cessasionists. RR's inference is totally coherent.
Besides, it was a point he was making to her, in order to cause her to question her own categories. But it seems RR is right - you are so desperately wanting the label "Reformed" and so uptight about it, that you are apparently not reading the posts carefully.
Also, what's with this rhetoric, "is this how you treat your guests in your home? "Hi, I'm a Reformed Baptist." "No, you're not Reformed!" What is your point? So if someone visited your home and said, "Hi, I'm a Apostolic Pentecostal Reformed Baptist!" would you in your great love say, sure, sure! Or, if not, would that fact that you say "No, you're not" mean that you don't love the person?
Finally, what is the point of saying read this or that? Are you sure that the Reformed need to reform some more to become Baptists? I thought you wanted to say you are not an Anabaptist, but that's exactly what they said!
Well, I'd been told that Baptists are not careful thinkers anyway.
boy this gets complicated......
....and I listened to Pipers' tapes about signs and wonders for today.....he is not saying one crazy thing from the modern charismatic movement, but is more in line with Vern Poythross at Westmnster Seminary, if you know him (amil).
Are there really any strict cessationists left? I mean, the glorious healings going on in the third world where the gospel is advancing to unreached people....it makes me sad to think Reformed people might call them lying signs and wonders and reject any miracles at all today....
even John Paton had a divine vision once, it is in his book.....
but carry on....
This discussion has nothing to do with charismatic/cessationist discussions.
RR was replying to me, and should be keeping his conversations to me separate, if he is trying to refute me in particular. It's not my job to bring the words of others into my discussion with RR - and I haven't, and neither should he.
And, Spurgeon himself was a Historic Premillennialist. I *think* Piper is Historic Premil. But to say he's a *continuationist* is not the same as saying he's a *non-cessationist* (or vice-versa). In my understanding there is a slight difference. But RR's point to Carolyn is not the issue *with me*, and should not be included in his conversation with mine. I don't know Carolyn's position so I cannot speak for her. I can only give an account for my own words and RR should not impute to me statements that I did not make - which he has, and he's been caught. He needs to put away the straw. That was my point.
My point in my *rehetoric*? Here it is; It seems no matter how many times we Reformed Baptists point out the historical and theological unity we have with *some* of you, *some* of you just simply won't allow it. You refuse to let anyone else except certain ones who live in your *covenantal box* to call themselves *Reformed* - based on Scripture? Nope, based on Creeds and Confessions (which I still love) and quotes from respected Reformers who didn't finish the job. And then comes the condescension... "You're not Reformed!" Do you get my point now? And do you see that RR still signed off with "...And. no, you are not Reformed"? Do you get my point now?
Yes, read the book, and perhaps you'll see that the same nasty spirit that used to light Credobaptists on fire back then still lingers in some germinal form in those who still refuse letting anyone one else outside their *covenantal box* call themselves Reformed. And yes, you'll read that there was good reason for continued Reformation, according to the Reformed Baptists (and many others outside your camp). And yes, there is still much Reformation that needs to take place in some peoples hearts and attitudes, and even theology.
The example of your "Apostolic Pentacostal Reformed Baptist" is silly because he does not exist. Please, put away your straw.
But, the Confessional Reformed Baptist DOES exist. Whoever has been telling you "Baptists are not good thinkers anyway" simply doesn't know Reformed Baptist roots, history, or current theology - and if you continue to hold on to and perpetuate false information it won't be long before you make yourself out to be a liar to the one who refutes you. As I said, not all Baptists are Reformed Baptists.
Perhaps you've not met any real Reformed Baptists yet, but Dr. Robert Godfrey at Westminster West in Escondido can introduce you to many good Reformed Baptist *thinkers* at the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies at the Seminary Campus. Ever been there? And perhaps Dr. Godfrey would ask you for *caution* with some of your condescending statements. Do you get my point now?
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
Moshe- :)
Here's one for you ( sorry if it sounds a little bit dispy...and I know this is thead drift....)
****************
Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad calls President Bush and tells him, "George, I had a wonderful dream last night. I could see America, the whole beautiful country, and on each house I saw a banner."
"What did it say on the banners?" Bush asks. Mahmud replies, "UNITED STATES OF IRAN."
Bush says, "You know, Mahmud, I am really happy you called, because believe it or not, last night I had a similar dream. I could see all of Tehran, and it was more beautiful than ever, and on each house flew an enormous banner."
"What did it say on the banners?" Mahmud asks.
Bush replies, "I don't know. I can't read Hebrew."
http://www.aish.com/jewlarious/jokes/Iranian_Nights_.asp?listType=latest
Thanks! That was the most edifying bit of this blog thread.
Your words and apparent attitude has been nothing but defensive and condescending at the same time. Whoever disagrees with you (say, the whole Reformed tradition?) simply does not "get it" (as you repeatedly said) and needs to "put away the straw" (ibidem).
The point that "Reformed" Baptists exist, and Pentecostal Reformed Bapitsts don't is simply irrelevant to the issue. Apparently you did not get the point, for all your accusations to that effect. The point is that strictly speaking reformed baptists do not exist as far as the Reformed tradition is concerned; why? Not because they are not Christians, but because they are not reformed. It is a self-contradictory label, just like pentecostal baptist would be, even if one decided to call himself that, as you guys have decided to call yourselves reformed.
Be proud of your identity and tradition! Just don't mislabel it! You think you have very solid scriptural reason not to take covenant theology in baptizing children of believers. Fine! Then just don't say you are reformed, if you disagree with the entire reformed tradition - which according to you failed to finish the crucial job of the reformation - in this central point.
If this makes you so angry, you have 500 years of reformed history and theology to deal with. One way or another, please stop using those * over and over again!!
I'm sorry, but to say you are Reformed and then go on to say that the Reformers were wrong because they did not reform enough is just self-contradictory, besides being Anabaptistic.
We do get your point. And you are wrong! You are part of a sectarian tradition which denies catholic theology in many important respects. You are not Reformed, and you should be proud of it, if indeed the Reformers were wrong in their Covenant Theology and too catholic to abandon infant baptism. Just call a spade a spade.
What kind of puppies are those, son?
Why they're Dispensational Arminians, sir.
Wonderfull!!
A few weeks later he's walking with Tim LaHaye when he sees the boy with his wagon.
Watch this Tim.
Hey, son what kind of puppies are those?
Why they're Postmillenial Calvinists, sir.
But, you told me they were dispensational arminians a couple of weeks ago.
Well they were, but now their eyes are open.
Author : Jonathan Qualls
By the way, in you naive responses you keep telling us to read a particular book, as if that would solve anything and enlighten the whole reformed tradition.
Well, we can play that game too. Why don't YOU read this book: [insert all the reformers and all reformed confessions here]
:-D
Heidelberg Catechism (q.74)
Belgic Confession (article 34)
Westminster Confession (article 28), the Westminster Shorter Catechism (q. 95) and Westminster Larger Catechisms (q. 166)
Augusburg Confession (article 9)
Thirty Nine Articles (article 27)
I guess ALL the reformers failed to read John Quincy Adams, otherwise they would have changed their minds!