Amillenialism
March 12, 2007 at 6:04 pm (Eschatology)
John MacArthur has unfortunately committed a rather bad blunder. He says that Amillenialism is intrinsically Arminian. I personally am stunned that he could possibly be so wrong on an issue, when the majority of Calvinists have been Amil. In view of this, it is a hot topic in the blogosphere at the moment. For those who wish to research the issue, they can do no better than to go to this enormous list of resources (from Sam Storms).
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Todd said,
March 12, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Spelling: amillennialism.
TulipGirl said,
March 13, 2007 at 12:12 am
John MacA is great–but he’s lacked clarity of sight before. . .
Gomarus said,
March 13, 2007 at 7:30 am
I just find it sad that MacArthur chose to make this an issue in his annual conference. There is so much more out there that needs to be theologically challenged — things which he and his Reformed brethren would heartily agree on. Why pick an intramural fight?
R. Fowler White said,
March 13, 2007 at 10:16 am
Dr. MacArthur’s choice to throw down the gauntlet on this matter is surprising. To me, it’s all the more remarkable in light of a claim of the late John Walvoord, former professor, president, and chancellor of Dallas Seminary and well known champion of dispensational pretribulational premillennialism. One day in chapel in the late 70s, Dr. Walvoord warned us students at Dallas Seminary not to embrace Calvinism lest we fall also into amillennialism. As a student who had already embraced Calvinism while at Dallas, I remember thinking at the time that Walvoord’s claim was overblown. Now, as an amillennialist almost 30 years removed from Walvoord’s statement, I find Walvoord right and MacArthur puzzling at best.
Joe said,
March 13, 2007 at 11:01 am
I agree with Jim. Out of all the good topics with which to encourage shepherds why this one? Thanks for the link to Storms’ site.
jedidiah said,
March 13, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I was going to point out that there are two ‘n’s in “amillennialism,” but I see that has already been done once. You don’t graduate from PBU without learning that word very well.
So I’ll just ask a rhetorical question instead! Are you really surprised by this? John MacArthur has been out as a premillennialist for a long time. I have two feelings about this: I am grateful for Evangelical churches and the success of men like MacArthur who show a love for God and his Word. At the same time, I find it irritating that contemporary Reformed Christians are often so willing to excise the “other” within while linking arms with folks like MacArthur. It seems like something of an identity problem in the PCA sometimes. Don’t you think it is interesting Lane that at our old Church we had a dispensationalist who admittedly did not get along well with the Presbytery in Barnhouse, followed by a sort of soft but true premillennialist in Boice who also kept the congregation’s tradition of calling (although not ordaining) deaconesses and then an OPC-bred amillennialist! Talk about a climate of diversity on non-essentials. I grew up in dispensationalist churches and think that theological paradigm not only is hard to fit into a Reformed setting, it is far from biblical. But there are elders in that congregation that claim to do just that. I guess that’s ok although it would have been hard for me personally to reconcile.
Or at least at one time it was. I get the feeling that the circle is getting tighter in the PCA on this kind of stuff. It seems like in the 60s and 70s conservative Presbyterians were a lot more open to diverse theological streams in the same general WCF camp because all shared Evangelical convictions, especially regarding the authority of Scripture. That’s just a general impression and not based on any real knowledge of the history of the PCA. Maybe I’m just paranoid because I am at the end of my seminary career and will have to look for a job soon, ostensibly in the PCA.
That was long rambling! Lane, I pray your family is doing well and that your ministry is blessed as you grow in the knowledge of grace. I pray that for all our ministers actually. God bless.
Rob Somers said,
March 13, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I too have to wonder why the heck he is choosing to start something like this? I have no doubt that he sincerely believes he is doing something good for Christ’s church, but…
David said,
March 13, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I suppose the question, Jedidiah, hinges on what is and what is not an “essential.” And I think Lane would agree that that distinguishes the question of the diversity at 10th Pres from the matters of the FV & the NPP.
The question that seems to me begging to be asked is this: is agreement-on-what-the-essentials-are ITSELF an essential or a non-essential?
But that makes my head spin, so I’d best not answer!
Daniel Ritchie said,
March 14, 2007 at 6:11 am
A conference which attracts such a wide range of opinion whithin the Reformed community was probably not the best place to make such a controversial statement.
jedidiah said,
March 14, 2007 at 7:09 am
David, I agree that that is the big question. The difference of opinion on “essentials” was sort of my point actually. I was saying that there has been an openness, against my own liking, to not only premillennialism, but stright dispensationalism in our denomination. I think that is unfortunate because I personally think dispensationalism is both unbiblical and way outside the bounds of historic reformed theology. I would place it pretty near the “esential” category but am willing to let it go I guess because that seems to be the ethos of the denomination I’m in and I am glad that such is the case. There are bigger fish to fry. I noted that it seems like the “essentials” might have become narrower over the years in the PCA (although I admitted that this is conjecture on my part). Essentials for the PCA are faithfulness to the full Authority of the Scriptures and affirmation of the WCF et. al.
As far as FV/NPP, I didn’t bring it up but guess its related. Those two are not the same and have to be thought about differently in certain places. If I decide to grant for a moment that the pastors influenced by Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins are telling the truth when they say they are committed both the the Scriptures and the WCF, even if I find that really hard to believe, it is no more of a stretch for me to believe that my former elders at 10th were telling the truth even though they are Dispensationalists.
I guess there are some differences since the FV touches on hot-button theological terms which seem at once closer to “the gospel” than the eschatological time-frame differences. It was a conjecture after all, not really thought out all that much. Maybe I should learn to think before I type. Take care.
greenbaggins said,
March 14, 2007 at 8:39 am
Jedidiah, good to see you! Well sort of “see!”
I have never regarded millennial issues as of the essence of the faith, though I regard pre- and post- as incorrect.
Dispensationalism is a separate issue, and is a much more serious error in my opinion, since it effectively disenfranchises OT believers.
However, I think we need to make a distinction between essential and non-essential matters, and a further distinction between heresy in the narrow sense and heresy in the broader sense. The more narrow sense is that something is out of accord with our doctrinal standards. People don’t usually like to use the word “heresy” for that, but prefer something like “heterodox.” The word means the same thing (”teaching something other than truth”), but the latter term does not have the same connotations as the former word does. “Heresy” in the broader sense means that someone is teaching a doctrine that strikes at the essentials of the Christian faith. I believe that dispensationalism, while a serious error, nevertheless falls into the former category, since I know many dispy believers. The worse forms of the FV theology fall into the latter category, being little better than straight Romanism.
I think MacArthur was ill-advised to make such statements, as what you say, Daniel, is quite true. I do hope he will apologize to the Reformed community for saying these things.
Puritan Lad said,
March 14, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Hi Lane,
Good stuff, though I consider myself a postmillennialist. There is some good discussion at Pulpit Magazine about this very issue.
Todd said,
March 20, 2007 at 7:10 am
A quick question for anyone who has listened to the MacArthur talk about amil/premil: Did he represent the amil position fairly and honestly, or was it a straw man attack to some extent?
greenbaggins said,
March 20, 2007 at 11:13 am
I only know what Kim Riddlebarger has been saying about it (who has heard the lecture). He seems to think that JM attacked a straw man. But that, of course, is second hand. FWIW.
tim prussic said,
March 26, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I’m late on my comments here, but this is an interesting post.
I think JM is great and, on this issue, greatly and curiously mistaken. I’m interested in discussing lines of distinction between a- and postmil positions. I’ve been most influenced on Rev. 20 by J.M. Kik - a postmil. It seems like it breaks down thus. A- and postmils agree that 1) That he established his kingdom at his first coming, 2) that Christ is currently reigning, 3) that when he returns there’ll be a general resurrection and a general judgement, and 4) that he’ll usher in the fullness of his eternal kingdom after the resurrection and judgement..
The disagreement seems to center on the extent of the growth and predominance of Christ’s kingdom here on earth before he returns. Amils seem to vary from dismally pessimistic to wildly optimistic in this regard. Postmils seem to see growth of Christ’s kingdom in this age as vast and encompassing most of humanity before Christ returns.
Do y’all think I’ve put my finger on it, or have I missed something(s)?
Todd said,
March 26, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Hey, Tim. We’ve batted around the different approaches to definitions over here:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/what-is-amillennialism/
tim prussic said,
March 27, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Danke!
Todd said,
March 27, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Afwan.
tim prussic said,
March 27, 2007 at 3:45 pm
huh?
Todd said,
March 27, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Arabic for “you’re welcome.”
tim prussic said,
March 27, 2007 at 6:31 pm
huh.
Todd said,
March 27, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Honest.
tim prussic said,
March 27, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Dude, I wasn’t doubtin’.