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)
Glad to hear Kim and I, as ministers in good standing in the United Reformed Churhces, are gnostics. I suppose Christ Reformed Church - as well as many other Reformed congregations - will have to decide if we want to be gnostics of the ascetic or of the antinomian kind.
I don't know about Kim, but since I detest pelagian moralism and papist asceticism, I vote for the latter.
Cheers!
Study why Augustine was premillenial and then left it to be amillenial. There are three main reasons.
If you guys are so smart, and I am so ignorant, you would already know.
It should be apparent that I have rigorously based my case for amillennialism on Scripture. Not on Augustine, not on his critics. Not on any human being.
Ultimately, who is right and who is wrong on the millennial issue is a matter of whose beliefs correctly align with God's Word. The inspired and inerrant Word of God alone is our sure guide.
You spout a whole lot of steam about this person and that person, this heresy and that heresy; but as of yet, despite your several posts, you offer ZILCHO biblical evidence for the position you deem so preferrable.
My main point, despite a small attempt at explaining the rationale for my amil convictions, has been to point out how off-base some premil attacks on amil theology are. Your's is a great example. You almost single-handedly prove the point that concerns so many of us. (Thanks! We appreciate it!)
And there's more: If your case for the premil view itself were at all scripturally compelling, one would think that you could have by now mustered at least something of substance (like at least a single verse, and a reasonable explanation thereof) to support your position. But since such is lacking, I conclude that for all your hot air, there's really not a case to be made.
At any rate, I have better things to do with my time than try to engage in an intelligent conversation with people of your type. I wish you well, personally; but it's utter folly to try to reason with those who are unreasonable. So consider this word to you to be my last.
Amillenialists have no support in scripture. There is NOTHING. There is nothing that states we are living in the millenium. It is a desperate cry for attention to think recapitulation is a legitimate view of Revelation.
There is nothing that states that an earthly kingdom (something the OT expects) is negated by the coming of Christ.
The attempts to reduce the entire OT to typology is an illegimate manner of dealing with Scripture and proves that amills are little more than slight of hand artists with eschatology.
Study for yourselves the roots of amillenialism. You find Clement of alexandria, origen, and later on (due to his confusion about the kingdom) augustine. Real winners there.
I ask you: WHAT IS THERE TO ENGAGE ABOUT AMILLENIALISM?
Like I said, the next good argument for it will be the first. To bad the reformers (and their children) could not leave all of catholicism behind.
Hmmm... Could it be that "James" is really a pseudonym for Dave Hunt?
The "reasoning" is sure the same. It reminds me of the way Hunt argued for Arminianism in "Debating Calvinism."
And just what is this "slight" of hand James has mentioned a couple times? And isn't it interesting that this expert on premillennialism keeps repeatedly spelling premillennialism as "premillenialism?"
And how ironic it is that this entire discussion started because of MacArthur's silly attempt to link Calvinism with premillennialism, and amillennialism with Arminianism!
When it comes to intellectual credibility, I'm not surprised that it's amillennialism that fits with Calvinism, and Arminianism with premillennialism (or premillenialism). And so I'm not surprised that Hunt, LaHaye, Hagee, etc., etc., etc. fall in with the latter.
Thank you for your biblical theological approach to the millenial issue. I'm a convinced amil from way back. We are living in the end times now (the 'millenium is now') - no more no less. After which comes the second coming of Christ in which he will come to establish a new heaven and new earth. the judgement will take place then......... Jesus has broken already into the house of the strongman and the strongman is now bound .... but for a while he will be unloosed. As for the Jews - many will be saved - just as they were at pentecost - but as for a new Jerusalem and temple - that is in in heaven with Christ. Eschatology is not an issue I relish in revisiting with the premils as there is nearly a rabid response, such as witnessed by the divisive James.
James you did not respond to my previous posting wrt to your calling on Paul to call we who hold to a different opinion as anathema. Me-thinks you like a fight for the fight's sake and for that reason do not believe you are here acting with the love the gospel demands of us. You are correct in saying to take this discussion onto your own turf - don't use Kim's space.
I've said enough - there are more important battles - to engage with the world with the gospel, not one another over disputes....
Shalom.
The contending here very often seems primarily, almost eagerly contentious and sectarian. It does not seem to be the humble pursuit of truth for the sake of edification, worship, spiritual maturity, and the cultivation of hope in the glorious appearing and revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Regardless of who said/or says what...much of the ambience that characterizes this discussion is a sorrow to the heart.
If JM set a bad example, than do not perpetuate or exacerbate the problem by justifying one's own manifestation of that which you deplore in others.
I have enough first hand exposure to know that there is a deep affection and respect that exists between men like JM, RC Sproul, Mohler, etc. Doctrinal differences--to be sure. But a significant measure of a mans maturity is his Christ-likeness in personal relationships--not his ability to verbally/theologically/exegetically slay his opposition. Particularly when one's position on the matter at hand (while very important), is not a matter of eternal destiny or foundational to the Sola's of the Reformation.
Please, hold your convictions with the passion and strength they engender, but please do not compromise your character in the process. It would be a pity to be correct and have no one who cares to listen to you--and this has and does happen to established and aspiring theologians of every theological orientation and conviction. Don't be one of them, please. We really have quite enough of them already.
I am not Reformed. I am not Amill. I am not even Augustinian, but your comments tarring Augustine and Amillenialism are unfair and show a superficial understanding of the facts.
First, an Amill type model is clearly discernable in the Cappadocian theologians, which predate Augustine by quite a bit and who rejected and corrected Originism wherever they could. The same could be said for Athanasius for example. They were hardly Augustinians. You seem to confuse the entire Christian tradition with Augustine.
Surely Origen did allegorize following the Platonic hermeneutical practices, but not everyone who does so is always wrong to do so. Does God change his mind? Does God repent? Did God not know where Adam was? Are those to be taken literally or metaphorically and/or analogically?
And, Amillenialism doesn't stand for fall with Augustine. Justin Martyr for example is quite clear that Premillenialism is one view among many. IN fact, all of your harping on an immanent return is support not for Premillenialism but for Preterism.
How about Matt 16:28. So some standing there will not taste death till the Son comes. Which means it has to be long enough for some to be dead but not all. When did the Son come in their lifetime, eh? Hows that for immanent?
Besides, Scripture says that we should give answers with respect, and you sir show no respect to those people who are made in God's image. Dishonering the image, dishonors God.
I realize that the primary focus of this whole series is not the millennial view itself, but the way in which amillennialism is often attacked (incl: the remarks of John MacArthur). However, due to the overlapping nature of the issue itself with how this issue is debated, I mention the following as a possible "step forward" for premils considering the amil view...
I placed my trust in Christ during my days at UW Madison in the early 1970s, when I was a hard-core atheistic evolutionist. For a number of years as a young Christian, I sat under the modified dispensationalist teaching of people like Ryrie, etc. I never bought into the pop-eschatology of Hal Lindsey, etc., but I was pretrib and premil ... and tenaciously so.
But the more I studied eschatology (as well as the whole of God's Word, and biblical and systematic theology - a driving passion in my life), the more discontent I grew with what I was taught. Not only did my Arminianism give way to Calvinism, but my dispensationalism gave way to progressive dispensationalism ... and eventually to a non-dispensational premillennialism. I became a one text (yip, Rev. 20) premillennialist ... and a very reluctant premillennialist at that! The only thing that made sense to me re: what remained of my premil eschatology (which wasn't much) was my supposition that Rev. 20 simply demanded the premil view.
But finally I came across a key that opened the door to the amil view. The precursor to that key was an understanding of other matters in Rev. 20, such as the notion that Satan had already been bound at Christ's first advent, that Jesus was even now reigning in heaven, that a case (and a good case at that!) could be made for understanding the two deaths and two resurrections of Rev. 20:4-6 in other than the premil sense, and that the millennium ended with a battle that looked precisely like the Ezek. 38/39 battle that coincides with the battle of Rev. 16 and 19 ... and thus with the glorious return of Christ.
So I was primed to make a change, and abandon my premil view. The force of Mt. 13; Mt. 24/25; Rom. 8; I Cor. 15; II Thes. 1/2; II Pet. 3; etc. was just too compelling. Text after text told me that eschatology was simple and Christocentric, and that the key end time events simply occurred at the very time of Jesus' return - no sooner and no later. And yet I stuck it out, for the simple reason that my understanding of the two resurrections of Rev. 20, though capable of being understood differently, still remained under the sway of decades of premil teaching. Until I found the key!
What was that key?
It involved the verbal and grammatical parallel between Rev. 20:4 and Rev. 6:9-11 (coupled with the description of the martyrs in Rev. 7:9-17). When I awoke to the truth that the SOULS of these martyrs came to life and reigned with Christ for 1000 years, then I saw that the reign of Christ and these martyrs in Rev. 20 was parallel to that in Rev. 6 and 7. Then I saw that what was being described was not a future millennium, but a present millennium. Then I saw that what was being described (i.e., in vv. 4-6) was not on earth, but in heaven. Then I could understand why this, the only explicit mention of a millennium in the whole Bible, had nothing to do with a kingdom of Jews in their land, but with the current interadvent reign of Christ at the right hand of His Father in heaven. And then I also saw that the great bulk of prophecy in the OT and the NT, though fulfilled in part in the present age, was ultimately to see its fulfillment in the glories of eternity, and not in some future 1000 year period.
From discussions with a great many premillennialists, I've come to the conclusion that scads of premils are one text premillenarians like I once was. There's really not much to their premil view that's compelling (certainly not to older dispensational forms). Yet they remain premillennial because of Rev. 20 ... and particularly because of what's said about the martyred (beheaded) saints who are made alive.
My suggestion is twofold: (1) Set aside the book of Revelation for a moment, and think about passage after passage throughout the NT. Ask yourself why, if the millennium is a future age following Christ's return, there's an utter silence about it? (2) Then look at Rev. 20 itself. Realize its genre. Realize that there are good examples of recapitulation in various places (e.g., Rev. 12, which also speaks of a "short time!"). Realize that Rev. 20:4-6 may very well be speaking of the same martyrs as in Rev. 6 and 7 ... the ones who are in heaven before Christ's return. Such realizations might just help you turn from premillennialism to amillennialism!
In conclusion, I'd like to make the following points:
1) The spirit with which we carry on debates is important. If I've offended anyone by ungracious remarks, I extend my apology.
2) The accuracy of what we say is also important. This is why some of us get a little upset when gross untruth is stated, and then made a basis for attacking the amil position.
3) I also apologize for taking so much space in this series. I thought what I said needed to be said by someone, but I undoubtedly have a tendency to go overboard with my remarks. Accordingly, I'll sign off for now ... and just wait a while before filling up Kim's space on this, his excellent blog.
4) I wish to state may appreciation for the ministry of John MacArthur. Like anyone, he can err. So obviously, can I ... and far more! I may and do disagree with him on many things. But it's good to know that people like John MacArthur and John Piper and Sam Storms and R. C. Sproul, who hold different eschatological views, can minister together for the cause of Christ.
5) I for one appreciate and respect the views of those who, though premil (e.g., Alcorn, Piper), are pretty far removed from the dispensational premillennialism (particularly the classic/modified, but pre-progressive, dispensationalism I once knew). There's a lot of premil theory being preached by people I highly respect, but a premil that is "not our fathers' oldsmobiles" ... not by a long shot. It's good and refreshing, in my opinion, to agree with so very much that Piper, Alcorn and others are now saying about the new heavens and earth. We really do have a lot of eschatology in common!
You said;
"E, I think we got your *point* easily enough. You wrote what you wrote - insults and all."
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You TOTALLY missed the point.
You think my point was just to trash talk reformed baptists, and then you and everyone else jumped all over me. Unchristian, unloving, ignorant, went the charges.
But I'll say it one last time. I gave voice to the SINFUL attitudes of the REFORMED who have NO TOLERANCE for reformed baptists.
I went on to REMIND the REFORMED - myself included - that we are ALL sinners and more inclined to hope in our own understanding rather than submitting to the Scriptures.
And then you come along and say that I'm mean and ignorant, and then when I explain myself, you're like, it's ok, little child, we all need to vent sometimes. I took that to be pretty patronizing, which is why I said, no, I wasn't venting, you missed the point.
I said what I said in order to resonate with the sinful attitudes of many of the reformed who are fed up with reformed baptists. I gave voice to their sin to draw it out, and as I said, at the end I said that we're all the same, assuming that we know what we're doing. In other words, "What YOU, O reformed frustrated person, judge THEM for, YOU do it too."
Do you understand yet? If you're insulted now, it's because you want to be insulted. My original post was directed to the reformed, who are fed up with reformed baptists, simply because they don't think the same way we do. I was trying to tell THEM that what they're judging YOU for they do themselves, so that they have no right to judge you for it.
I regret that it wasn't crystal clear and in baby talk so that everyone could understand it, but if after my explanation of it, you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.
If you want to be insulted, go ahead, but that was not my intent.
E
Well I enjoyed it. It's handy to have this around for reference and I think you did a great job presenting amil theology.
When explaining amil to my DP friends, I have never found Rev. 20:1-10 as a great challenge. In fact, on the contrary, I use this text often as ammo against them. Because if taken literally, this text makes DP such a ridiculous view that even DPs manage to laugh at themselves.
Firstly, will Satan, a spiritual being, be literally bound by a literal chain and be thrown into a literal bottomless pit and locked up with a literal key?
Secondly, didn't Jesus himself say that Satan will be bound in Matt. 12:29? This "binding" in Rev. 20 and Matt. 12 is inescapable.
Thirdly, DPs' jaws drop to the floor when they hear Kim's two-age schema and Gog and Magog's rebellion after Christ's millennial reign. They soon ask: Rebellion after Christ's perfect reign on a perfect "heaven on earth"? Where did all these hordes of reprobates come from? Marriage? Descendants of glorified, perfect humans? Remnants of this age?
One other DP joke: Angels holding Jupiter-size cauldrons pouring God's judgment on earth! (Rev. 16)
Here is the final, authoritative voice on the subject.
If you want to hear the word of the Lord as clear as can be, just read this.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5025/5025_01.asp
I just got in from class in Burbank all day...
Well, I do try to read carefully. Yesterday, in the midst of your post (which to me and to others *sounded* like a blanket insult to Reformed Baptist), and in the midst of being told by not a few that I am *not Reformed* - because "Reformed Baptists don't exist", everything just sounded mean spirited.
You stated, "You think my point was just to trash talk reformed baptists..." Yes, because that is how it *sounded*. I think others agreed.
I will endeavor to try to read you more carefullly. I would encourage you to simply write more clearly. No one needs to write in code. You don't need to give voice to previous negative voices and attitudes that no doubt all of us have had - that we desire to repent of. For you to give voice to "the SINFUL attitudes of the REFORMED who have NO TOLERANCE for reformed baptists" without qualification that *that* was your intention merely sounded *as if* the voice you were giving voice to was your own.
Also, it was not me who insinuated that you are a little child that needs to vent and that venting is ok. I think that was someone else.
Sometimes we offend without intent. I think this was one occassion for you. None the less, it would have gone a long way to just ask for forgiveness so we could all move one. You just tried to justify your "voice" it seemed. But now, with this email, you have partially admitted your fault ("I regret..."), and I forgive you.
Please believe me, I forgive you.
Tomorrow is the Lord's Day, and all the Reformed, of every conviction will meet with the Lord and offer up acceptable worship. Let there be nothing between us. And let's let love cover a multitude of sin.
Grace and Peace,
Walter
1689.com
But Walter, I was giving voice to my own sinful nature as well. But then I answered myself at the end. Too subtle though.
But you're right, a lot of people seemed to have picked up the ball and ran with it.
For me, lesson learned. Yikes.
E
Like I said, let's let love cover a multitude of sins, whether on purpose or not!
:-)
Grace and Peace,
Walter
1689.com
I realize I am late in posting but reading through the comments I can't believe how ARROGANT you are. If I had to guess I would say you are in your late twenties and you think you actually know it all. Please brother, spare us your pride. Do you not think most of these people who have posted don't understand the Premill position? I am sure most of them (as myself) was taught the junk of dispensationalism for many years. I could write a book on it just as Arthur Pink did many times. But in the end even he changed his position.
How can you miss it while reading through Hebrews, Eph. 2, 2 Cor. 6, just for starters to realize that the Temple is Christ and we are the New Temple because of Christ. To split the people of God into two groups is like Moses striking the Rock a second time. Even though you don't realize it, but teaching the construction of another earthly temple and offering animal sacrifices, is the same thing as hanging Jesus on the cross a second time. Wake up and study the Reformed position before criticizing it.
You took the words out of my mouth re: James. To accuse the Reformers of not leaving behind the Amil of the Catholic church is as poor of an argument as that used against infant baptism. Surely you wouldn't accuse them of laziness in this regard?
Caroly,
I use chick tracks to teach my students at a Christian High School what NOT to believe! Thanks for the link. Chick tracks always crack me up (which I am sure was not their intended purpose!).