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)
No, the whole *Reformed* tradition does not disagree with the Reformed Baptist tradition, as evidenced by the similarities between the Westminster and the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689. Will you conceed this point? Or have you never examined these two documents side by side?
www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html
We differ on two crucial points of theology - Church Polity and Baptism. And by your definition, unless everyone holds to your Church Polity and your theology of Infant Baptism - they are not Reformed. Well, you will have to erase much of history to be right.
You see, Elliot, the "reformed tradition" is not limited to your "reformed tradition", though you would like it to be. And so, "Reformed Baptists" do indeed exist and have been widely recognized, except maybe by the likes of those who define away anyone apart from "your reformed tradition" - and that's simply what it is - "your reformed TRADITION".
You create a strawman when you say "if you disagree with the entire reformed tradition" - because, we agree with much of the reformed tradition, but depart from some of the *tradition*.
And it certainly does not make me angry at all. Do these " *** " lead you to believe I am angry? If they do, please forgive me, since I only use them for pause and emphasis. Please tell me, as I am fairly new to blogdom.
Also, I never wrote that "the Reformers were wrong". Where did you get that? Please be precise. I merely wrote that they did not reform enough.
:-)
...and, I have read many of your books. That's why I'm Reformed Baptist.
:-D
Still Reformed, Always Reforming,
Walter
1689.com
Confessions??? How about;
-WALDENSES CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1120 and 1544
-THE SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION, 1527
-DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, 1527
-RIDEMANN'S RECHENSCHAFT, 1540
-THE DORDRECHT CONFESSION, 1632
-A TRUE CONFESSION, 1596
-SHORT CONFESSION OF FAITH IN XX ARTICLES, 1609
-A SHORT CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1610
-A DECLARATION OF FAITH OF ENGLISH PEOPLE REMAINING AT AMSTERDAM, 1611
-PROPOSITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 1612-1614
-JOHN SPILSBURY AND HIS CONFESSION
-THE FIRST LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1644
-THE FIRST LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1646 Edition
-AN APPENDIX TO A CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1646, Benjamin Cox (Coxe)
-THE FAITH AND PRACTISE OF THIRTY CONGREGATIONS, 1651
-THE TRUE GOSPEL-FAITH DECLARED ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, 1654
-THE MIDLAND CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1655
-THE SOMERSET CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1656
-CARTER LANE DECLARATION OF FAITH, 1757
-JOHN GILL'S DECLARATION OF FAITH, 1757
Catechisms??? How about;
-A CATECHISM FOR BABES, OR LITTLE ONES, 1652
-A SHORT CATECHISM ABOUT BAPTISM, 1659
-INSTRUCTION FOR THE IGNORANT, BUNYAN'S CATECHISM, 1675
-BENJAMIN KEACH'S CATECHISM, 1677
-THE ORTHODOX CATECHISM, 1680
-A CATECHISM FOR BOYS AND GIRLS
-A CATECHISM OR INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
-THE PHILADELPHIA BAPTIST CATECHISM
-THE BAPTIST CATECHISM, CHARLESTON ASSOCIATION CATECHISM, 1813
-THE BAPTIST SCRIPTURAL CATECHISM, 1850
-A PURITAN CATECHISM, 1855
-A CATECHISM FOR LITTLE CHILDREN, 1864
-COMPEND OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES HELD BY BAPTISTS: IN CATECHISM, 186x
-A CATECHISM OF BIBLE TEACHING, 1892
-A BRIEF CATECHISM OF BIBLE DOCTRINE
So, did someone out there think Baptists don't have their own historical documents predating even many Pedobaptist documents?
:-D
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
Since you don't know the difference between those Baptists who "think they are reformed" and Reformed Baptists, perhaps these historical Reformed Baptist documents will help you.
http://www.founders.org/library/polity/
Careful though. You just might enjoy the Reformed Baptist theology!
:-D
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
Nobody said Baptists don't have confessions.
And I thought you guys don't want to be lumped with anabaptists, so it's interesting to see confessions such as the THE SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION,DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, RIDEMANN'S RECHENSCHAFT, THE DORDRECHT CONFESSION in your list - all ANABAPTIST! If you want to say you are reformed, and then go on and list anabaptist confessions to make your case, you must be joking! Do you seriously think that any theologian or historian would classify anabaptists as reformed? Do you think anabaptists would have wanted to hold hands with Calvin and de Bres and say, look, we're the same! What a joke!
You can copy and past 800 other baptist confessions here, and it won't make a difference because you still missed the point.
The point is that all the confessions that are historically reformed reject credobaptism. Therefore to adhere to credobaptism is to stand outside of the reformed confessions. To produce baptist confessions to prove the historicity of credobaptism is irrelevant to the issue.
And, oh, yes, I have read baptist/anabaptist sectarian literature. I must say that non-catholic theology (in the Reformed sense) never appealed much to me.
Walter, maybe you can create your own blog to try and convince the world about your convictions. You should participate here, but also we should stick to the main subject of the topic.
What about JMac?
We both know that Baptists share some theology in common with Anabaptists, so I have no problem admitting that. Just like Pedobaptists share some theology in common with them as well. I understand your objection to the "non-catholic" theology of the Anabaptists and agree.
:-)
Here is what we Reformed Baptists will not conceed - that we are not *Reformed".
Here is what *some* of you at this blog (and other places) will not conceed - that we who call ourselves Confessional Reformed Baptists are *Reformed*.
So to say that all the Reformed creeds and confessions reject Credobaptism, when all they did was simply deny it *by definition* is to only argue in circles.
My point was to show that there were MANY documents before, during, and after the Reformation that are creedal, confessional, REFORMED, and Credobaptist!
:-D
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
But part of the problem on this blog has been some of you dear Pedobaptist brethren not really understanding much of Credobaptist history, theology, creeds, and confessions, so that some of you have just lumped us Baptists into one nasty lump. I was just hoping to clarify and agree with someone who previously wrote that JMac is NOT a Reformed Baptist. He's what we Confessional Reformed Baptists would call a Calvinist, Dispensational Baptist.
That's where we've been today...
:-D
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
Ugh! This is my fault.
Well, surely you all can see that I was quite right in pointing out how the reformed baptists make the reformed feel. But as I was trying to point out, we all begin with the assumption that we are correct. Being correct becomes an idol, and we will take vengeance on those who deny us our idols.
Paul did in fact call for unity, but Paul's unity and the unity that most seem to espouse today are two VASTLY different things.
Paul is not calling us to accept any and all errors for the sake of unity, he is calling us all to be in submission to the Scriptures. Whoever is in error, even if they think their error is founded in Scripture, is actually not in submission to Scripture.
If we were all in submission to Scripture, then we'd all believe the same thing, and there would be no need to call us to unity, because we would be united. The cause of divisions is NOT those who insist on orthodoxy and refuse to compromise. The cause of divisions are those who refuse to submit to Scripture.
But what should we say about those who are in error?
What did Jesus say to the disciples on the road to Emmaus? He said, it's ok, you just happened to misunderstand the Scriptures. I understand, the Scriptures are very complicated, so there's room for lots of debate. You didn't understand that the Christ had to suffer. Don't worry, you can hold on to your error and still be accepted.
NO! He said they were FOOLISH because they were slow of heart to BELIEVE the Scriptures!
All, all, all error is the result of such foolishness. While we may be incorrect in our interpretations of Scripture, Jesus Christ does not allow for "honest mistakes". Errors flow from unbelief.
If you want unity, then let's lay aside our unbelief once and for all and submit to Scripture.
This is why I say that God is the only judge. Even if we are called to judge according to the Scriptures, the Scriptures are the judge, not man.
But now let's slow down.
Slow down a minute.
We all need to come to terms with something. We are sinful. We are wicked. Therefore we will all see the Scriptures a little differently, according to our fallen condition. There won't BE unity.
If you want unity DESPITE differences, you've got another thing coming. It isn't going to happen. It's not because the orthodox - whoever they may be - refuse to compromise, it's that the UNorthodox refuse to give up their error.
But knowing that this is the case, we still can love one another, even if we are divided by errors.
Some are credobaptists, some are paedobaptists. ONE of us is refusing to acknowledge the Scriptures. Granted, we can overlook this to love one another, but neither one of us will give up our view because we are convinced that it is Scriptural. But the fact is, BOTH views CANNOT be Scriptural, because the Scriptures aren't confused and divided. WE are confused and divided, not God, not the Scriptures.
Let go of your hope for unity despite differences. If you really believed that, you'd become a Roman Catholic, despite differences.
Error = unbelief.
Union must be based on believing the same thing. It cannot be based on anything else.
E
Yes, it was you who started with your false statements aimed at "Reformed Baptists". It was you who, way at the top of this thread, insulted us with your condescending comparisons. So, I'm curious... how is it that the Reformed Baptists have made you "feel"? Did any RBs tell you none of you Pedos know Greek? Did any RBs compare you to Iraqi citizens? Did any RBs compare you to children? How is it that any RBs made you "feel"? Do you really wish to call for unity? Then repent. We will forgive you and move on.
I should correct you at one point. You wrote, "Union must be based on believing the same thing. It cannot be based on anything else." Well, the Scriptures teach that we are to "be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 3:3)... and THEN Paul lists for us our foundatinal Trinitarian theology in verses 4 through 6. When we are among brethren, the exercise of peace will go a long way to shoring up all our good theology.
But all your right theology delivered in a mean spirit, as evidenced up top, will undo all the good theology you may hold to. And don't forget that Paul wrote verse 2 before he wrote verse 3 in the same context.
Grace and Peace,
Walter
1689.com
and btw RR I thought Christ Redemption is at the very heart of covenantal understanding of the Scriptures and if infant baptism(good support certainly exists) is true, it seems to be more a means of the propagation of His Kingdom than the central point of the covenants
There was a time, pretty recently, I was extremely party spirited(that which Paul condemns), it honestly cost me quite a lot in my relationship to Christ and His church. I know almost all here are far more mature than me but still be careful.
So, you'll let me call myself "Reformed Baptist"???
:-)
En Cristo,
Walter
1689.com
if I was wrong in my judgment sorry for that
But obviously who am I to say who is Reformed or not? I am too small a fry, I think I am happy you are Christ centered in that you are covenantal
I am a very Particular and Reformed Baptist! And I wish I owned "Orbitz" though. I'd be giving tons of money away...
:-)
Siempre, En Cristo,
Walter *Ortiz*
1689.com
Has anything new transpired since MacArthur's remarks?
They obviously generated a lot of discussion - some on topic, some off topic.
I just wondered if Mac has said anything since yesterday to qualify his statements, or if others of stature have reacted, etc., etc., etc.
Anyone have any information on such matters?
JM may be a Calvinist but he is not reformed.
Don't take the opportunity to attack Reformed brethren because of the statements of MacArthur.
We are too close in our beliefs to be divided. IF we are going to fight someone's beliefs we should fight the error in JM's teaching. Also, we should do what it APPEARS he didn't - maintain a spirit of meekness. Galatians 6:1