So the blogosphere is buzzing with discussion and debate about Dr. MacArthur’s rebuke directed at Amillenarians and Postmillennarians. I am a orthodox preterist post-miller who heard his speech in person. I noted in previous posts my disagreement with Dr. MacArthur’s eschatology and surprise concerning his sermonic tactics this week. But let me be very clear about something: though my theology was mocked I was not offended. You can’t offend me — I’m living victoriously in the millennium!!
Seriously, I wasn’t shocked by what Dr. MacArthur said. I knew what he believed. And this is his conference — he can and should preach what he believes. But I was surprised by three things. The first I have already noted: I would have never dreamed that Dr. MacArthur would have made this issue the issue of a Shepherd’s Conference. Secondly, I would have expected that if he were to preach on his eschatological beliefs he would have expounded Romans 11 or Revelation 20 or some other text. And third, I was surprised that Dr. MacArthur would need to use debate tactics that were intended to unfairly bias the audience and mock the opponent. Of course, we at Fide-O may sink to those levels — but that is why we come to his conference rather than the other way around.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Jason,
Are you going to be around the GCC campus tomorrow (Friday)? I’d love to meet you if you’re around. (Nothing to do with this current debate, I’d just like to put a face with a name.)
NB
Yes, I will be visiting the GCC campus tomorrow. I will definitely be around the tables back by the bookstore in the afternoon. And at some point I will be doing a live internet radio broadcast with Gene Cook on the Narrow Mind. I think it will be at 5 PM. Since I was unable to get registered this year I will be sitting outside during the general session tomorrow night to listen to Dr. MacArthur preach. I would love to meet you, Nate.
Sam Storms had an article in his newsletter that asked: Was Jesus an Amillennialist? (Rev. 2.26-29). As the article was in a newsletter I had to copy it to my blog so you can read it here: Did Jesus Have an Eschatological View
I have noticed lately that conversations between those that hold to some form of Dispensationalism and others views are more heated than between the other views themselves. For some reason dispensationalists are very adamant about their views but this does not mean that Amil, Post-Mil and Historic-Pre are any less convinced it just seems that the conversations are different.
Your doing a good job Jason. I was taken back by Dr. Mac’s accusations and strawmen. (that is if the teaching was accurately reported on and it appears it has been) I wasn’t offended as much as I was ashamed of Dr. Mac. for having so innaccurately protraying the amil position. I believe he forfeits his credibility on that point alone.
Be Very Encouraged Brother,
Randy Martin Snyder
1 Corinthians 15:22-25
The 4 kinds of Eschatologists:
1) “The Ignorant Closed Minded” – Those who take a firm view of one school of thought, out of ignorance of the other schools. These folks typically have been indoctrinated in one view and couldn’t make even a theoretical case for another view if their lives depended on it, because they are too ingnorant.
2) “The Well-Studied Close-Minded” – Those who take a firm view of one school of thought, having thoroughly studied all views, and more importantly, having thoroughly studied the Scriptures in comparison to all views. Also, having decided to ignore all the strong arguments the other views have propounded.
3) “The Ignorant Pans” – Those who are Pan-Millenialists (“everything will pan out alright when Jesus returns”), out of ignorance. They would rather not take a view, than to study the views and the Scriptures relevant to the views.
4) “The Wise and Learned Pans” – Those who are Pan-Millenialists, out of having studied all the views and relevant Scriptures thoroughly. They reluctantly admit that God has not revealed the eschaton to us well enough to construct one of the major views, though He has revealed enough for us to shoot holes through each view.
Number 4 is the only correct view, but requires both much study, and much humility, two qualities not only sadly lacking in both pew and pulpit, but often warring against each other.
Blessings,
Terry Rayburn
Terry,
1) With all due respect, your Number 4 is circular reasoning: your assuming to know something that which you profess cannot be known.
2) Also your poisoning the well when you suggest that your position is the “humble” view, and if one takes another position they are arrogant.
Further, all your views that you listed except yours, you describe as “close-minded” and “ignorant.” Talk about poisoning the well! I don’t think that is very humble.
3) And since Matthew 24 and 1&2 Thessalonians is revealed to us for understanding, we can have a framework, sequence, and overall nature of these events.
If you disagree with my interpreation of those texts, it just brings us back to the text.
4) It sounds nice and pious to claim pan-millenialism, but it is not Biblical reality since Jesus gives some of his most severe warnings to believers regarding these events (not to mention Paul in 2Thess2)
Blessings,
Alan
Terry,
The beginning of the book of Revelation makes bold promises for those who understand its contents and respond in obedience:
“Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.” Rev 1:3
Also in Ch 22:18-19 Christ himself gives stern warnings concerning this book. I am not aware of any other part of Scripture that is singled out in this way. How can you reconcile these (especially Rev 1:3) with “Wise and Learned PanMillenialism”?
Also, PanMil seems suspiciously consistent with a postmodern view of Scripture. I suppose nothing is proven by that fact alone. But it isn’t helping.
First, I never said that my view is #4 (though I can see why you would assume that).
Second, it is written somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but with a serious kernel.
Third, the very fact that Spirit-led brethren who are well-studied disagree [sometimes strongly] should give one pause before assuming that God has made a clear case for any view.
Fourth, one ultimately has to decide before the Lord how much of his [short] life to spend on any one issue, and I’ve concluded that the rabid support of any eschatological view is not worth a large percentage of my life (though I’ve concluded such after many years of intense study in the field).
Fifth, lighten up. If you have a strong belief in one of the views, feel free to devote yourself to it. Just be aware that there are vast numbers of your brethren who will never agree with you, though they agree with you about the deity of Christ, the 5 solas, the virgin birth, justification by faith, etc., which God has made quite clear to Believers in general.
Sixth, full disclosure…I lean heavily toward Amillennialism (as in #2) myself, but I think I could present the Dispensational view quite handily in a staged debate.
Seventh, post-modernism infers that what is true for you may not be true for me, and that absolute truth cannot be known. I would strongly disagree with that, and would argue that huge amounts of truth may be clearly known from Scripture, but that obviously, the eschaton is unclear enough that wonderful brethren strongly disagree.
Deut. 29:29 – “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever…”
I know from personal expeience how it kills us sometimes to not be able to *conclude* some things.
Jason
I’m pretty new to the ‘blogosphere’ and I only came across your blog after the recent developments concerning MacArthur.
Just wanted to say that I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read so far, and I also listened to you on the radio (got it from Voice of the Sheep) and thought you did well.
Keep up the good work. You have found yourself now on my blogroll – feel priviledged! lol
http://www.armensblog.com
Terry,
You said,
“I’ve concluded that the rabid support of any eschatological view is not worth a large percentage of my life“
This is poisoning the well again.
Why is it either or? Why is someone “rabid” because they simply hold to a view?
“Fifth, lighten up. If you have a strong belief in one of the views, feel free to devote yourself to it. Just be aware…”
Once again, why is it either or? To have a strong view does not equal disunity.
Finally you quoted,
“Deut. 29:29 – “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever…”
And those things such as the events leading up to Christ’s Second Coming has been revealed to us:
“Learn this parable from the fig tree: Whenever its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near, right at the door” (Matthew 24:32-34)
It is not an option, we are commanded to know these things.
Blessings,
Alan
Terry,
I lightened up! But then I read your second post and was more bothered by it than the first!
You said:
obviously, the eschaton is unclear enough that wonderful brethren strongly disagree.
They disagree about infant baptism, too. The fact that Christians disagree does not “obviously” render the Scriptures “unclear” on any point of disagreement. Your reasoning here is the very foundation of the Roman Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura.
Your position seems to be, “Believe whatever about the millennium – but don’t teach it with conviction. Don’t try to persuade others. And BTW you are probably wasting too much time if you study it. It is wiser to declare such portions of Scripture unclear.”
You cited Deut. 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever…”
AMEN. The things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever. God has revealed it. We do not honor him by rendering portions of Scripture as secrets things that belong only to Him.
Uncertainty is not necessarily the product of a humble heart. It can just as easily be the product (and the cause) of false humility.
On further reflection I think the PanMil view may be the worst of all views. If one says “I do not know” – that is fine. But to say “No one can know” is barely orthodox. The first statement may actually reflect true humility. The second is the trademark of false humility.
Alan,
You wrote
Why is someone “rabid” because they simply hold to a view?
I didn’t say everyone who holds a view was rabid. It’s just that I’ve seen too much “rabidity” over the years. Some are accusing MacArthur of that here, as regards ridicule of those who differ with him (I didn’t hear the message). I attended a pre-mill Bible Institute 30 years ago that literally taught that if one was a-mill that they were an unsaved liberal wolf in sheep’s clothing, serving Satan. I kid you not.
You wrote
It is not an option, we are commanded to know these things.
If the command includes holding to one of, say, three popular contemporary views, then roughly 66% of the church at any given time is in violation of that particular command. How disobedient of them.
Andrew,
You wrote
Your reasoning here is the very foundation of the Roman Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura.
You have that exactly backward. You won’t find *anyone* more Sola Scriptura than I am. The problem with Romanism is not thinking the Scriptures are unclear, it’s in elevating human authority to deny the clear teaching of Scripture. I firmly believe in the perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture, but certainly not all parts are equally clear.
Compare, for example, the infant baptism you mentioned, with the virgin birth. I’m not saying that infant baptism may be “true for you and not true for me”. I’m saying you may think infant baptism is “clearly” taught in Scripture, and I may think believer baptism is “clearly” taught in Scripture. But neither of us (as regenerate believers) would disagree on the virgin birth.
For the record, I didn’t say that anyone else should refrain from holding a view and vehemently persuading others of it. I only said that *I* had concluded (after much study and all-night espresso-fueled debates back in the day) that such wrangling was not very productive in comparison with other Biblical pursuits. Others should do what they think is right in these matters.
I’m tempted to briefly lay out several weaknesses and holes in each of the major views, just because they are there, and just because most adherents to each view don’t think their view *has* any holes. But the time invested would violate my own point that such time invested is unproductive.
Lastly, maybe I should clarify that I’m sure not taking the view of the mocker that Peter spoke of, who says, “Where is the promise of His coming?” Whatever may be unclear about the end times, they are surely coming, and it will be glorious for the children of God, and horrible for the children of wrath.
Blessings,
Terry
As I myself hold to the Amillenialist view, would you agree that it is more periphial? I believe you would since there have been many astute lovers of God who have held to the one of the three other views. Perhaps I misunderstood the nature of this current subject (if so I am sorry)but I do hope this is more along the lines of a reasoned biblical opinion (each view has it’s problems) as opposed to a dogmatic stance(no pun intended.)Anyway, the reason I “say” this is because John MC, and other eschatological dispensationalists can indeed be wrongly vilfied amongst us Calvies for holding to such a view while being quite sound in every essential doctrine. Just a passing thought. I am nobody
To the last commenter let me respond first by saying that I appreciate your gracious attitude and it is one that I not only agree with but also practice. Remember, my posts have been necessitated by Dr. MacArthur’s outrageous attacks against us, not the other way around. Even when I have done posts in the past against wacky Dispensationalism I have always made it clear that I was not referring to men like Dr. MacArthur. But in return he compared all Amillers, including all Post-millers, to atheists, Arminians, Open Theists, and Roman Catholics. Thus he took a peripheral issue and made it into something bigger.
Secondly, Amil is not the big minority view. Amil is a branch of Post-mil. Post-mil is the largest as far as popularity goes throughout church history. And the term Amil within that system is relatively new as it is a differentiation basically between the Post-millers who believe in a Golden Age and the Post-millers who do not — basically. So in that sense, Amil is quite possibly the most popular viewpoint even though the term itself is used less.
Terry,
Just want to clarify (no pun intended) the relationship between millennial skepticism and Rome’s attack on Sola Scriptura. I do not question that your faith and practice are governed by the Scriptures alone. What I am saying is that the PanMil conclusion rests on the same reasoning that Rome uses to attack Sola Scriptura.
The Roman Catholic argument goes like this: “With 20,000 denominations and so many differing views on justification, sanctification, sacraments, etc… all of this disagreement proves that the Scriptures alone are not sufficient. They are not so clear that every Christian can interpret them. We need the magisterium of the Church to guide us. We must appeal to Sacred Tradition. We must appeal to the Church Fathers.”
You have adopted the same reasoning about the timing of the millennium, except you draw a different conclusion. You observe the varying opinions of Christians and that becomes proof that God’s word is unclear. Instead of saying “The Church will clarify God’s written revelation” you conclude that passages of Scripture are secret things which belong only to Him.
But the foundation of your reasoning is the same. You are still affirming Sola Scriptura, but the scope of its sufficiency has shrunk to only the bare essentials.
Andrew,
Let me ask you this two-part question:
1) Is all Scripture equally clear?
If your answer is “yes”, then I would have to conclude you are just “spinning” to win your point.
If your answer is “no”, then the second part of my question is,
2) Are the less-clear Scripture nevertheless clear enough that any believer should be able to conclude dogmatically their meaning without doubt, and thus question the sincerety or mental power of all the foolish ones who disagree?
Re A.W. Pink’s journey, he was at one point an A-mill. He then became a pre-mill and wrote a very convincing book to that effect (I had a copy, though I recently sold it on eBay). He then mended his ways and swung back to A-mill, the position he held at his death, I believe. Not one to shrink from “certainty”
, even Pink had to admit there were strong points for both views, and weaknesses in each.
Terry,
1) No. But thanks for questioning my motives by the suggestion that I am “spinning to win my point”. I guess that’s easier than dealing with what I actually said.
2) You said Are the less-clear Scripture nevertheless clear enough that any believer should be able to conclude dogmatically their meaning without doubt… modify “should” to “could” and the answer is yes.
The remainder of your question is a total straw man. and thus question the sincerety or mental power of all the foolish ones who disagree? Terry, WHO advocates this? Does this make reference to anything I have actually said?
About Pink (back to the subject, and without ad hominem) – I am aware that Pink changed his views and became a vocal critic of dispensationalism. I have read “A Biblical Refutation of Dispensationalism” and found it imperfect but very challenging and edifying (not sure if that was the book you’re referring to). In that book, he takes a strong stand against dispensationalism. I’m not sure why you mentioned him, because he would not have approved of a skeptical “we can’t know” view of the millennium. I’m on Pink’s side. Passionate convictions about the millennium are A-okay with me. What about you?
I agree there are some strengths and weaknesses in each view. Paedobaptists have a couple of strong arguments too, but they’re still wrong. Charismatics offer a couple of good arguments for speaking in tongues, but they’re wrong too.
Does this bother you? Is it necessarily arrogant to have convictions about non-essentials?
If you are not bothered by these examples, then neither should you be bothered by dogmatism on eschatology. But if you have a skeptical “we can’t know” view on all non-essentials, then again I must refer you to my objection in the previous comment.
Terry, I forgot that earlier you had written this:
For the record, I didn’t say that anyone else should refrain from holding a view and vehemently persuading others of it.
Great! I agree entirely.
I only said that *I* had concluded (after much study and all-night espresso-fueled debates back in the day) that such wrangling was not very productive in comparison with other Biblical pursuits.
I completely agree. “All-night espresso-fueled debates” are a lousy method for studying a difficult doctrine in Scripture. Perhaps your method and your age (not the subject matter) was the cause of futility? I am 27 and although I was not a Christian during college, I often stayed up all night engaged in unproductive discussion.
Others should do what they think is right in these matters.
Definitely, yes. As long as “what they think is right” includes diligent study to honor the Lord and does not include hopeless skepticism coupled with false humility.
So perhaps I agree with you entirely! Maybe it is this blog medium that is causing misunderstanding between us.
Andrew,
You wrote
So perhaps I agree with you entirely! Maybe it is this blog medium that is causing misunderstanding between us.
Yes, the blog medium can make us prone to pugnaciousness and misunderstanding.
Even Paul seemed to have some of that problem in a more primitive writing technology. The Corinthians apparently thought he was tough and “weighty” in his letters, but more gentle in person.
My real rant is not the study and convinced opinion re eschatology, only the too-frequent ridicule and animosity between members of the Body. If fervent love covers even a multitude of *sins*, surely it can cover some peripheral doctrinal disagreements.
I sense you would agree, even in this blog medium, and you’ve made some good points. Thanks.
Blessings,
Terry