I don’t know how it came up, but the issue of John MacArthur’s address at the 2007 Shepherd’s conference has been on my radar lately. So I listened to it again, as well as his six part series he preached shortly thereafter entitled “Why every Calvinist should be a Premillennialist.” I then listened to Kim Riddlebarger’s five part series presenting the Amillennial view. I would ask anyone interested in this to carefully listen to both presentations and determine for yourself who makes a stronger Biblical case.
A few highlights:
- Riddlebarger admits both sides have their problems; the issue is which side better deals with the Biblical data with the least amount of tweaking. MacArthur nowhere makes a similar admission. In fact, he ridicules the other positions. Not helpful.
- The bottom line issue is hermeneutics. To their credit, both sides present this with abundant clarity. One side’s interpretive grid is Israel; the other side’s is Christ. One side interprets all OT Scriptures “literally”; the other side says you must interpret using standard hermeneutical principles. One side says you must interpret the OT at face value. The other side says you must interpret the OT in light of the coming of Christ, and the NT. One side says you must never “spiritualize” (whatever that means) any given text. The other side says you must let Christ and the Apostles tell us what the OT means. A quick example – I was reading 1 Pet 2:9 yesterday, and Peter does precisely what Mac and other dispensationalists say must not be done; he applies an OT passage to the church that was originally meant for Israel (Ex 19:6). There are many other such examples in the NT.
- MacArthur’s presentation has led me to conclude he either doesn’t understand Amillennialism, or he’s purposely misrepresenting it. Since I believe he’s a man of great integrity, I believe it’s the former, not the latter.
- Riddlebarger has somewhat of an advantage in that like many of us (me included), he’s a former dispensationalist. Mac has never been anything other than a dispensationalist, which may explain his failure to fully understand the Amillennial position.
- Mac doesn’t deal with true Amillennialism. He repeatedly equates it with “replacement theology.” While it’s true some past scholars (he quotes Ridderbos) have held the view that the church replaces Israel, I think that’s more an issue of imprecise language than a full orbed theological viewpoint. I know of no reformed Amillennialist who holds this position. Riddlebarger correctly points this out.
- Mac interacts considerably with Barry Horner’s book “Future Israel.” I’ve read the book, and I need to re-read it, but I believe it’s the most effective and hard-hitting book I’ve ever read by a dispensationalist. But it’s also potentially dangerous, as it plays the “anti-Semitism” card like no other book I’ve read. Although Horner softens the language, his point is clear – to be Amillennial is tantamount to being anti-Semitic. While that may have been true prior to the Reformation (when the true church was largely underground), it is true today of only a tiny minority of reformed Christians. That doesn’t stop Horner from wielding his broad brush! It distresses me greatly that a man of MacArthur’s stature is more than willing to align himself with Horner. Horner has skillfully built a strawman, and spends several hundred pages knocking it down. No wonder Sam Waldron wanted to throw the book across the room!
If interested in a critique of the Shepherd’s conf lecture, take a look at this. This states if far better than I can.
My wife has asked me why I’m so spun up about this. I guess it’s because I’m stunned Mac has so grossly misrepresented/misunderstood the Amil position, and I’m upset that Amillers are labeled anti-Semitic. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As I’ve already said, the bottom-line issue is hermeneutics. If you interpret the OT “literally”, you’ll come up with a Israel-centric understanding of redemption. My question – is that legitimate? Is that what God’s plan of redemption is all about? I’ve been told Carson and Beale’s book “Commentary on the NT use of the OT” is a must have, and helpful in this area. It’s on my wish list.
3 comments:
InvitationToVisit:
http://BibleEndTimesReExamined.Fhero.net/index.html
AnswersBiblicallyTheQuestion:
Who Are God's Chosen People...Really?
Thank you
Really? You can't grasp what "spiritualize" means by anything MacArthur has said? That's a large challenge for me to believe. But seriously, it is obvious that the word refers to that which does not occur literally in the physical realm but rather does so in the spiritual realm alone, as in one's spiritual heart or soul, for example. To illustrate from scripture, as Jesus physically ascends to heaven in Acts, it is made clear for the disciples (and us all) that we should interpret literally the prophecy of Christ's return to earth by the angel who insists that exactly as the disciples had physically seen Jesus physically ascend from earth, so shall He return to earth in the same manner, not merely within our hearts, etc. I have been studying this debate and seeking God for where the truth lies in it for 40 years now, and MacArthur's explanation only becomes more obviously the correct one to me, while all other alternatives appear clearly erroneous. However, just as I came to full conviction that the truth resides in dispensational-premillennialism as well as in Calvin's salvational theology after lacking it early on in my faith, thus sharing MacArthur's beliefs in both areas, I must admit that I do not share his belief of cessationalism with regard to pneumatology, surprise, surprise! And so, at least, you and I are in agreement that we are not in full agreement with MacArthur's theology.
And to bolster my earlier response in contrasting the validity of the literal, historical-grammatical method with the folly of the spiritualizing and allegorizing method of Amillennial Bible interpretation, may I quote Reformed scholar, J. O. Buswell, in his use of Dr. Wilber B. Wallis’s following argument in support of the plain meaning of Rev 20:4–6:
"[M]y esteemed colleague, Dr. Wilber B. Wallis . . . calls attention to the fact
that in verse 6 it is stated of those who have part in the first resurrection that
“they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him the thousand
years.”
The most common opinion among those [Amillennialists] who reject the plain meaning of this
passage is that the millennial reign of the saints with Christ simply refers to
the condition and functions of the blessed dead in heaven during the present
age. Dr. Wallis points out that if the saints in heaven are “priests,” as those
who reign with Christ are explicitly declared to be, then it is appropriate for us
to seek to communicate with them. It is of the very essence of priesthood that
the priest is in sympathetic fellowship with the people for whom he serves. (See
Hebrews 4:15, 16; 5:1, 2). The doctrine of the priesthood of the saints in heaven
would open the door for prayers to the dead, or at least communication with them, and requests for their intercessory prayer.
During this present age, believers in this world are all priests, intercessors.
The priesthood of all believers on earth is a fundamental doctrine of Protestantism.
It has been shown from the Scripture, however, that believers living in this world at the present time are not reigning with Christ. It is in the Millennium, after the Lord’s return, after the resurrection of the righteous, that we shall be both priests and kings in Christ’s earthly kingdom." And this latter argument must be viewed as obvious evidence for concluding the validity of Dispensational-Premillennialism.
Post a Comment