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 all started when someone started making fun of all Reformed Baptists, and when someone else lumped Reformed Baptists and Non-Reformed Baptists into one lump, and when we *Reformed Baptists* we told by many that we aren't Reformed. Sorry you missed the important parts.
All that to say that JMac is a Calvinist, Dispensational Baptist, and not a Reformed (Amil) Baptist.
:-)
Grace and Peace,
Walter
1689.com
:-D
:-(
I don't have a dog in this fight since I am not Amill or Premill but Postmill. I am not even Reformed or Arminian.
In any case, it is sad to see that MacArthur hasn't learned his lesson. I remember when CURE existed and did the Lordship Salvation issue. MacCarthur's position was at the time essentially that of Trent, with Formed Faith, until Horton corrected him.
What interested me is what Kim wrote, "That does not mean he's wrong, but it means he should know the other side well enough to accurately represent it." I think that is a good principle. To carry out that principle it would certainly help if people would read representative works rather than critiques or go through works cherry picking. If you are going to critique Rome, then actually read Newman's Lecutres on Justification or some Henri de Lubac on grace. The same goes for say a critique of Eastern Orthodoxy. labeling such views as "pelagianism" is unfair, uncharitable and irresponsible. It certainly isn't how advocates of those to major traditions would represent it or the arguments one finds in many a reformed critique.
As for the baptist/reformed fracas, I would ask the Credobaptists to consider that there is no explicit verse commanding women to take communion, so why do baptists do it? Moreover, it seems strange to me for a monergist to complain about children not having certain abilities. Isn't that like saying that someone spiritual dead doesn't have them and so they need grace? The question about infant baptism is really this-was the humanity of Christ united to his divine person at conception or did it depend on the maturation of his human faculties so that he didn't become Christ till later in life or not? The issue is Christological.
To the paedo's here, if children are members of the Covenant regardless of cognitive or volitional abilities, why exclude them from the Eucharist?
For Kim, I am curious to know your thoughts on this question. If the resurrection of Jesus is the basis for the Christian's resurrection in Rev 20, whose resurrection is the basis for the resurrection of the wicked?
You asked, "I would ask the Credobaptists to consider that there is no explicit verse commanding women to take communion, so why do baptists do it?"
My reply;
Well, in context, it's both explicit and inferred. Paul speaks in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 of;
1) Praying and Prophesying in the church.
2) Men and Women who Pray and Prophesy in the church.
3) Coming together as a church.
4) Meeting together, not to "eat the Lord's Supper, but to "depise the church of God"
5) And, that as often as "you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" - and that's done by "the church" - those admitted into "the church" by Spirit baptism first, then water baptism.
So, Perry, the context already speaking of men and women (i.e., the visible church) in the earlier verses justify allowing women to partake, because believing women are part of the visible church in verse 26.
Reformed Baptists don't teach that one who has been baptized spiritually and by water may NOT partake of the Lord's Supper.
:-)
Grace and Peace,
Walter
Young children can pray in church but not take communion or be baptized. Praying and prophesying are not the same things as taking the eucharist. And I don't see how coming together as a church implies women taking comunion since little children came together as well. Especially in light of v.3ff, men have the preminence so it is quite plausible that women could come but not partake. So I don't see any implicit warrant in 1 cor 11. Besides, do your women cover their heads when they pray? Nowhere in ch 11 does it speak of women partaking of communion any more than the children who were likely present at such services of worship. So if its inferred, it isn't a deductive inference.
As a follow up, I am curious to know how Baptists figure out who has been "Spirit" baptized exactly? And did Jesus have to employ his human faculties at an early age for his humanity to be united to God or was did the hypostatic union take place at conception regardless of cognitive abilities? Was Jesus a person in the womb?
The elements of worship are present in 1 Corinthians 11. The church is present. Children are not mentioned there. I agree that children may pray none the less. They only took the Lord's Supper *when* they came together as a church, and at no other times. The headship of men is not an issue. There is no *preeminence* - we are coheirs. Yes, in my Reformed Baptist church, our practice is that when we pray corporately, our ladies wear a head covering.
What noun do the pronouns "you" in verses 19-26 refer to for you? They all go back to the noun in verse 18, "...when you come together as a church". Will you deny that baptized *women* are a part of the church?
By Grace,
Walter
1689.com
I need to get some sleep. I have class all day tomorrow. Perhaps we can discuss more later.
Grace and Peace To You,
Walter
1689.com
Comments such as, "the next good argument for amillennialism will be the first," and challenges like, "pick a text, any text" (to refute amillennialism), reveal one thing to me about you: Your mind is made up, you refuse to seriously entertain any evidence in favor of the amil view or in opposition to the premil view, you refuse to meaningfully engage in any dialogue about the issues.
This mentality is at least a part of what's at the heart of the problem many of us have been trying to address re: several below-the-belt premil tactics to be simply dismissive of the amil position - as if those of us who embrace what we consider to be an eschatology that grows out of and is faithful to the biblical text have rocks in our heads.
So, here's just a quick attempt toward answering a couple of questions raised by you and another contributor:
1) With regard to evidence against the premil position...
As far as I know, every premillennialist, dispensational or not, believes that death and final judgment will occur 1000 years after Christ returns. However, I Cor. 15:20-28,50-57 indicates that the abolition of death (v. 26) and the swallowing up of death in victory (v. 54) will occur at the very time that Christ returns (vv. 20-25 [note esp. v. 23]) and believers in Christ are raised from the dead (cf. vv. 50-54 [note esp. vv. 51-52,54]). I realize there's some ambiguity in v. 24, as to whether "then" means something like "then, at that time" or "then ... as in 1000 years later." But v. 54, in context, clears up any lingering ambiguity: "WHEN this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, THEN will come about the saying that is written, 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'"
Thus, if death is defeated (abolished, swallowed up in victory) at the time of the parousia, it cannot be defeated 1000 years later. Oh, it is true that death is defeated at the close of the millennium; Rev. 20 says so (note not only v. 9 but also v. 14). It's just that the millennium ends at the parousia, meaning that the millennium is before the parousia ... meaning, in turn, that the millennium cannot be after the parousia, meaning that the parousia is not premil.
2) With regard to the first and second resurrections of Rev. 20...
There's nothing like premillenarians repeating, ad nauseum, Alford's "dictum" that the first and second resurrections of this passage must have the same meaning or else words have no meaning.
Clearly the passage also speaks of the second death, and everyone agrees that the first and second deaths are not of the same type! (The first death is, indeed, physical death. But the second death [cf. Rev. 20:6 with Rev. 20:14; 21:8] entails being cast into the lake of fire, where body and soul are tormented forever [cf. Mt. 10:28].)
If the first resurrection is understood to refer to a spiritual resurrection (such as regeneration and/or the raising of a believer's soul to heaven to be with Christ at the very moment of his death), then it's certainly possible to do justice to the thought of Rev. 20:1-10 without understanding the two "comings to life" as identical to one another. How so? One such scenario is that the believing martyrs of Rev. 20:4, immediately upon physical death, are spiritually raised so as to ascend to heaven; yet unbelievers, at the time of the parousia, will be physically raised - at which time their souls (and bodies) will descend into hell in a spiritual (and eternal) death.
In this scenario we have, as others have pointed out, an ironic and reverse parallelism in which believers die once and are raised twice, and unbelievers are raised once but die twice. Warrant for this oscillation between the spiritual and the physical in terms of death and resurrection can be seen two other Johannine passages: Jn. 5:24ff and Jn. 11:25f.
The above way of interpreting Rev. 20:4-6 is not an attempt to dodge what seems to be a lynchpin for the premil theory; it is, rather a view that's derived from a close examination of the details of the text. Moreover, the context (Rev. 20:1-10) reveals many other details, such as the binding of Satan and the heavenly reign of Christ and the final battle and the defeat of death - all of which work together to confirm the essense of the amil understanding of the two deaths and two resurrections.
I do not believe that the millennial issue is near the top of our priority lists for Christian issues. As I've said before, even though I've pretty much settled on the amil view as most satisfying to me following three decades plus of study, I fully realize that various texts are subject to legitimate debate, including Rev. 20.
But what tires me (and sometimes rankles me) is an ongoing attempt by some premillennialists to resort to nothing but a lot of name calling and insuation (such as: "Amils don't care about eschatology, haven't really studied it in detail, aren't faithful to the text...").
I'd like to offer my own challenge. Why, when (1) Rev. 20 is the only passage to explicitly mention a millennium, (2) Rev. 20 looks like Christ's present interadvent reign, (3) Rev. 20 says nothing about the Jews and their land, (4) one OT promise after another speaks of perfect and eternal kingdom and land blessings, (5) the NT clearly indicates that fulfillment is centered in Jesus - including the fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic and new covenants in relation to the church in the present age, as found in Acts 2; Gal. 3; Eph. 1; Heb. 8; etc.), should anyone come to the conclusion that God's grand and glorious promises for the future are somehow to be torturously squeezed and crammed into a 1000 year period to follow the event of events known as Christ's second advent (and sometimes [in circles that continue to propogate classic dispensationalism] in a retrogressive way, with Israel reverting to OT practices as if Christ had never come, died, etc.) ... especially when the Bible affirms time and again a simple "this age" and "the age to come" framework, and consistently places the resurrection of the dead, the rapture of the living, the reward of the just, the recompense of the unjust and the renovation of the cosmos at one time: the return of the Lord, and sees Jesus' return as the final event prior to the arrival of the new heavens and earth (without the necessity of such oddities as second chances for salvation, and people living on earth in non-glorified bodies and getting married and having children after Jesus' return, and a series of multiple resurrections and judgments)?
When I look at the millennium (on the one hand) and the promises of God about our glorious future (on the other hand), I see a mismatch. The awaited golden age is not a millennium, but the new heavens and earth. The millennium is now, immediately preceding the parousia; the new heavens and earth are to come, immediately following the parousia. A multiplicity of key passages throughout the OT and NT consistently confirms this framework, as I see it. It's so simple, so straightforward (and I don't get double vision trying to see it!).
Books like "Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond" contain very good and very helpful interaction between proponents of the premil, postmil and amil views. Other books (such as Kim's "A Case for Amillennialism" and Hoekema's "The Bible and the Future") present the case for a particular eschatological view, and do so very well. But (and I say this as my opinion!) all too many of the comments made by MacArthur and others are simply unfounded and unhelpful.
My hope is for true and significant dialogue ... all the while realizing that bigger issues are at stake, including the spirit in which we engage any issues.
Paul says there is a preeminence, just as there is in the Trinity. The Father is the God of Christ (eph 1:17). Man's relationship to woman is based on the Trinitarian distinctions.
Since men sum up the woman, for woman is from the man, man is the source, as the Father is the source of the Son, it is quite plausible to read the "you" to be referring to the fathers as the heads of the church, just as in the OT where fathers oversaw the passover or pacha, which the Eucharist is the fulfillment of.
So I don't need to deny that baptized women are part of the church since not all parts on anyone's model have the same function. Are all apostles? No. So again, there is no explicit text that allows women to partake of communion. The text your cite is at best implicit. Point made.
It is interesting that you ignored my Christological questions, though I will chalk it up to the lateness of the hour.
Are you Pelagian? :)
No, I am not Pelagian. There are more options on the historical table than that. Scotus, Aquinas, Molina or Palamas were neither Calvinists nor Arminians and none were Pelagians. Augustinianism has a number of flavors, many of them quite sophisticated and predating Calvinism, such as Aquinas or Scotus. There are also non-Augustinian and non-Pelagian/non-semi-Pelagian models as well. Palamism is one of them . I am a Palamite.
Now, have fun figuring out what that is. ;)
I am relatively new to the faith (although professed it my whole life), and the views on end times seem to cause such a fire amongst fellow believers, its sad. What ever happened to every man being a liar, and letting God be true? What ever happened to Sola Scriptura?
In respects to pre-millennialism, and upon much study, I have having trouble finding one verse that says anything about...
1. A millennial reign! Revelation 20 says something about reigning 1000 yrs, but 'obviously' it is full of word pictures and symbols. Satan is not bound with a literal chain, neither does Jesus (messenger) have a literal key to the abyss. Why do men insist that this 1000 yrs is not figurative? Surely Jesus , Paul, or any of the apostles would have said something about it should it have been literal? Nope.
2. There is not one verse that explicitly states that the church will be taken out of the world before the tribulation, yet there are many that explicitly state otherwise. (Matthew 13 - Parable of the tares, Jesus actually says to NOT take them out)(Matthew 24 - Jesus comes back AFTER the tribulation of those days)(John 17 - "I pray NOT that thou shouldest taken them out of the world...")(and on and on..)
In regard to a 1000yr period...
John 6:39 - Believers raised up "Last Day"
John 6:40 - Believers raised up "Last Day"
John 6:44 - Believers raised up "Last Day"
John 6:54 - Believers raised up "Last Day"
John 5:28-29 - Both Believers and unbelievers at the same time
John 12:48 - Un-Believers raised up "Last Day"
I Cor 15:52 - Believers raised up "Last Trumpet"
These verses need no *reading into*, they are clear in what they say! Either Jesus is trying to fool us, or pre-millenniests have a *lot* of scripture to answer for.
Grace and peace,
AJ
To your good list of verses which place the resurrection/judgment of unbelievers at the same time as the resurrection/judgment of believers, I would add Acts 17:31; 24:15.
I also agree with Vern Poythress that a passage like II Thes. 1:5-10, which places relief for believers and retribution for unbelievers at the same time (i.e., the time of Christ's return in glory), knocks out, in a single blow, both the pretrib idea of a coming of Jesus 7 years before His second advent, and the premil idea of a final resurrection/judgment 1000 years after His second advent.
For reasons comparable to those of Poythress, I think that I Corinthians 15 is another passage that single-handedly demolishes both the pretrib and the premil theories, and that much the same could be said for II Pet. 3. And I agree that something very similar could be said for the parables in Mt. 13 as well as for Jesus' Olivet Discourse teaching in Mt. 24/25 (and parallels). Why? Because Scripture relentlessly teaches that the parousia, the resurrection and the judgment are concurrent.
To put this all another way, I think it's the GRAND SWEEP of the OT and the NT alike that is so impressive and so supportive of the simple and straightforward amil systems that puts an emphasis on "already" fulfillment in this age (in part) and on "not yet" fulfillment in the age to come (in full).
I take Bible prophecy seriously; but to me not a single OT passage, not a single word of Jesus, not a single word by Paul, not a single word by Peter ... and not even the words of John in Rev. 20 --when looked at more carefully-- point in the direction of the confused and complicated dispensational scheme that's still so popular with so many. As Isaiah put it in Isa. 65/66, the great hope of God's people is the new heavens and earth. And this is the theme that's repeated throughout the NT: the giving way of this age to the age to come, with no millennial age between.
(The only "millennial" age is the interadvent age - the time between the first and second comings of Christ.)
Praise God that the Messiah has come, and that we are now experiencing a measure of fulfillment ... a kind of harbinger and first-fruits ... of what's to come. Praise Him that Jesus will come again, and bring every last promise to a glorious fulfillment.
I've had my fill with "eschatologies" that are much more about the tribulation and the antichrist and speculation than they are about what the Bible itself emphasizes: fulfillment in Christ, and the church which He came to purchase with His blood. It's time to leave the silliness of rampant speculation behind, and to glory in our Lord and Savior both now and throughout eternity.
Wayne, that was beautiful!
I am encouraged that the above objections are probably some of the best amills can do. It only makes my work easier.
I am also saddened that people actually still believe in amill theology. I thought we moved beyond platonic duelism and gnosticism. Oh well.
A good reformed place to discuss these issues would be here:
http://reformedreader.org/forum/index.php?sid=1810fbe2c7ccad166b1bcdfeada5fa19
This is not a format that I can really engage three of you in. There is too much clutter. Join there, post your comments over there and I can interact much better.
My, oh, my ...
Obviously, despite all his huffing and puffing, James has offered absolutely NOTHING (as in: N-O-T-H-I-N-G) to support any of his charges. Incredible.
And this is a guy that thinks premil theory trumps amil theory???
Would Prov. 26:11,12 apply???