My Review:
Dr. Sam Waldron has written a very clear response to Dr. John MacArthur’s first message of the 2007 Shepherd’s Conference. Not only does Dr. Waldron give a comprehensive case against MacArthur’s Dispensationalism but also for a biblical Amillennialism. Furthermore, Dr. Waldron outlines and corrects the extreme misrepresentations of Amillennialism proposed by Dr. MacArthur. In fact, it was these misrepresentations that upset so many of us during that conference. We would not have minded so much if Dr. MacArthur had attempted to biblically defend his eschatalogical beliefs — it’s his conference, he could have done whatever he wanted! But to misrepresent the eschatological view that was held by most of the other preachers on the conference roster that year and the view that is held by the vast majority of Christians within Reformed churches, was what surprised so many of us.
Dr. MacArthur did not even champion Historic Premillenialism which has been held by many throughout church history, but instead he attempted to persuade us of the merits of Dispensational Premillenialism! His whole thesis was based on a false premise that Historic Premillenialism, Amillenialism and Postmillenialism subscribe to “replacement theology and supersessionism.”
Dr. Waldron deciphers Dr. MacArthur’s Dispensationalism, explains why Amillennialism is not Replacement Theology or Supersessionism, and explains why one cannot be both Dispensational and Reformed theologically at the same time.
With sufficient brevity, Dr. Waldron gives a helpful historical and hermeneutical arguments against Dr. MacArthur’s position. Furthermore, Dr. Waldron discusses biblical texts important to this discussion such as: Galatians 6:16, Romans 9:6, 1 Corinthians 10:18, 1 Corinthians 12:2, and Ephesians 2:12-19. His biblical arguments include many texts proving that the Church is the Israel of God, the seed of Abraham, and the heirs of God’s promises in both the Old and New Testaments.
In fact, one of the most refreshing sections is the one on hermeneutics. Reading this section reminded me of the first time I read Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth Gentry, Jr. This section really digs deep enough into this debate to reach the fault-line in the Dispensational position. The Dispensational hermeneutic is severely fallible and everything built upon it eventually collapses in theological confusion and biblical inconsistencies.
My Hope:
Who knows, MacArthur’s message and Waldron’s response may turn out one day to be viewed as the first signs of the end of the Dispensational Theology era. One can only hope — 150 years is too long for any divergence from biblical theology. The damage it has on the church will take many generations to fix. Among respectable theological institutions Scofield’s Classical Dispensationalism already seems to be dead, so does Blaising’s and Bock’s Progressive Dispensationalism. But Dispensational Premillennialism, which is what Dr. MacArthur adheres to, seems to be fighting for its life. It’s hermeneutic is faulty and its theological conclusions are very damaging to the church.
My Friend:
Much like Dr. Waldron’s sentiments, I consider Dr. MacArthur my friend and most importantly my Christian brother. In fact, in many ways he has served as a mentor and teacher. His biblical defense of “Lordship Salvation,” his relentless critique of liberalism and the church-growth movement, and his fearless defense of Calvinism has profoundly shaped my life and ministry. His commentaries and books and sermons are as valuable to me than an anything in my library. The compassion and generosity that he personally showed me when I was in a time of adversity affirmed to me and all my friends that Dr. MacArthur is more than just a biblical theologian, more than just an excellent expositor, he is a true man of God.
For the vast majority of theological issues that face the church today I completely agree with Dr. MacArthur. But, yes, this one theological difference that I know that I have with Dr. MacArthur is significant. And, yes, the nature and substance of this issue necessarily effects many other important theological issues. It is almost like the issue of infant-baptism, it doesn’t mean that paedobaptist are heretics; it just means that although their contributions to theology are vast, they are absolutely in error on this very significant issue! So, I continue to consider Dr. MacArthur one of the greats in our generation. Nevertheless, I hope that one day, in some dispensation not too long from now, all forms of Dispensationalism will cease to exists in our theological institutions, disappear from our theological curriculum, and never be heard from again in our pulpits.
To borrow from Dr. Waldron’s concern, it is interesting to note that the very modern age that marked the rise of Dispensational Premillennialism also marked the fall of Calvinism. Ironically, Dr. MacArthur should be duly noted as one who has fought hard for the revival of Calvinism. If he could reform his ecclessiology/eschatology then we might be able to declare “Revival has come!”
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.
Amen brother!
I will never forget the pilgrimage from Dispie thinking to the Amil position. I finally cavorted in the freedom of the Scriptures like never before. Passages that were once confusing to me took on new meaning. The Lord was indeed on David’s throne never to be removed.
His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom!!!
I was raised in a church that espoused premillenial dispensationalism but was also somewhat reformed in its theology. I left that church and have become even more more reformed in my theology. I have heard the term “amillienialism,” and have probably even read some about it, but I know next to nothing about that particular eschatological position. Could someone please explaim what it is and why it is necessary for someone that is truly reformed in their theology to hold to that position.
Soli Deo Gloria
Davidd, It is a tricky road to travel seeking the “truly reformed” label, because pretty soon you get past the essentials of reformed theology and get into the confusion that one must hold to every jot and tittle of the Westminster Confession (i.e. infant baptism)
Having said that, there are tons of great materials on amillenialism on monergism.com. Waldron’s book “The end times made simple” is a great primer from a Reformed, Baptist and amil perspective.
Waldron’s book is such a weak excuse for exegesis that it really no surprise to be advocated by one so weak on eschatology. I remember engaging Waldron on his blog series. He just could not answer pointed questions. I quickly discerned that it was a waste of time. Some people prefer labels and systems over Scripture. Such is the fruit of amill theology.
Amills prefer to be vague and speak in generalities.
Most people who think amill makes sense know so little of the history of amill theology and where its roots are.
No thinking christian should be amill. Leave it to the gnostics, catholics, and those who embrace superstition.
1: Who are the “rest of the dead” in Rev 20:5?
2: Why does John separate the resurrection of the just and unjust by 1000 years if it is a “general resurrection”?
3. Why did Justin Martyr state that all right thinking christians believed in an earthly kingdom reign of Christ for 1000 years?
4. What is the “regeneration” Christ spoke of in Matt 19:28?
5. Why do those saints in heaven look forward to reigning on the earth in Rev 5:10?
These questions and other typically send the amills running with their tails tucked. Waldron did it. Will you all as well? The scriptures should be embraced, not something to be terrified of.
“extreme misrepresentations”
Strawmen are always easier to attack. As much as I enjoy his work, it is a tendency of his to do. Of course when it is emergents that he is pricking, thats ok.
Not so sure about this. I’ve seen some folks actually lose arguments with strawmen, I mean strawpersons.
Vist us, please, and comment.
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com
James Kime,
No thinking christian should be amill.
Some people prefer labels and systems over Scripture. Such is the fruit of amill theology.
Amills prefer to be vague and speak in generalities.
Do you have to practice being so pompous? Or does it come naturally?
I hope that wasn’t too vague for you.
I was under the ministry of Pastor Sam from cradle to my twenties, meaning, i survived his systematic theology sunday school classes and dripping-with-richness sermons, so i hardly believe that james kime knows what he’s talking about puting “weak” and “Waldron” in the same sentence.
The man has few superiors in exegesis and is a much loved and missed former pastor of mine.
I have a question for anyone.
I’m still new to the world of the blogs so help me understand something. Is James Kime a “troll”?
I’ve seen the term tossed about but am not sure exactly what it is.
Jason,
Thanks for the recommendation. I look forward to reading it.
And I enjoyed our time together last year on the Calling for Truth radio program when we discussed this issue.
Grace and Peace,
Brian
James-
I recently converted to NCT and studied Historic Premil and Amil/Partial Preterist/Idealist to find a new eschatological home.
Since your blog indicates that you are NCT I am assuming from your comments that you are hist premil?
If so, what in your opinion are the best works on hist premil?
Hutch
James,
From one premillennialist to another: Dude, chill out.
Lee,
It’s not uncommon for passages to take on new meaning in the mind of an amillennialist!
Mike, you will find that NCT doesn’t have a particular eschatalogical home. You will find all -mills, unfortunately.
My position on eschatology is the same as the earliest church fathers and those such as Irenaeus. Therefore, I am premill with the expectation that Christ will return at any time.
People often confuse historic premill with posttrib premill. The fact is that true historic premill tends to not take a position on the rapture as you will not find explicit statements as to the timing of the rapture in the church fathers. In other words, you could be pretrib premill and still technically be historic.
At any rate, I am pretrib premill.
Feel free to email me if you would like to discuss some of these issues from the NCT (also the church fathers position – not like the rather novel covenantalism) perspective.
unashamed17@yahoo.com
That which distinguishes New Covenant Theology from Dispensational Theology and from Covenant Theology is its acknowledgment of the Truth that ethnic/national Israel was, with the exception of a (small) remnant, unbelieving and is not now, never will be, and NEVER WAS the ultimate object of our Lord’s plan of redemption. Ethnic/national Israel was judged and executed as a murderous harlot (A.D. 70); such historical fact is consistent with the foundational understanding of NCT and is inconsistent with any theology which fancies that ethnic/national Israel and the Church share identity and/or that ethnic/national Israel will be saved en masse at a future date. It is beyond lamentable that NCT adherents fail to recognize the stain on NCT that is Israel-centered eschatology.
As I may have previously commented, Hank Hanegraaff’s Apocolpyse Code (the “code” is the Old Testament referents in Revelation) is “every bit” the MUST READ that is Dr. Gentry’s BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL; indeed, I recommend that Hanegraaff’s book be the very next book read by every Christian, followed immediately by Dr. Gentry’s book! Hanegraaf’s book is akin to Napalm (especially wrt the Dispensational Theology jungle), while Gentry’s is akin to a “bunker buster”. Only the most ardent of Spirit-quenchers would continue to adhere to Israel-magnifying/Christ-minimizing theology upon reading either book (one, I predict, is just waiting to retort!).
James Kime says, “you will find that NCT doesn’t have a particular eschatalogical home.
Thank you James for admitting that. We have been saying that for years and now that you have admitted it I feel we are making progress.
Now if we could just get you to add the word “theological” to “eschatological” in that statement my work here would be done.
Matt, it is hard for James to chill out. He also takes issue with MMA and you know how “those” people are. ;>).
By the way have you read Waldrons book. If and when you do I would like to know you general thoughts.
Clarification: Israel-centered eschatology is not “held” by the vast majority of NCT adherents; that partial preterist amillennialism is the “view” which is consistent with the hermeneutic of NCT is, lamentably, muddied by self-identification with NCT by some whose hermeneutic and concomitant eschatology are Israel-centered.
I should have already written: Excellent “post”, Jason! As I’ve commented, the work done by y’all, as well as that done by Drs. Waldron and Riddlebarger (inter alia) in response to Dr. MacArthur’s “millennial manifesto” is greatly edifying and appreciated!
System-driven theology (whether DT or CT) is rooted in error as to Israel; all error among the regenerate stems from such root. If equipped with facts such as those delinated by Dr. Gentry (Hanegraaff, too!), one who searches Scripture for Truth rather than for ostensible support for what one already believes will rightly reject the feeble attempts by the unregenerate and by Spirit-quenching regenerate folks to explain the “good and necessary consequences” of their non-negotiable, system-driven presuppositions.
James,
Your last comment was deleted by me due to unchristlike insults of a Christian brother. Continue with such an attitude or actions and you will be asked to not comment anymore. Besides, I still believe if you would comment less and listen more you may benefit.
Grace and peace.
James-
I understand that NCT does not have a particular eschatological home.
My opinion is that you can adhere to NCT and hold to Amil or historic pre-mil.
Dispensational pre-mil with its unbiblical position on “ethnic” Israel is incompatible with NCT.
I asked the question that I did in order to determine your position.
I have already settled the eschatological issue in my heart since coming to NCT.
Is it your position that all early proponents of Amil would be considered to be heretics?
Your comment about thinking Christians is uncalled for, there are “Thinking” Christans in NCT, DISP & CT.
Scot-
Many adherents to NCT have admitted that there is no “official” eschatological position for NCT.
Just as there is no “official” position for “Reformed” Baptists.
BTW Waldron’s book in my opinion is exceptional.
Regarding your comment on a theological home…nice. As far as a “theological” home, I am sticking with the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. Their teachings pre-date the man made system of Covenant Theology. Grin.
Scripture is clear: The Mosaic Law has been nailed to the cross and abolished/made to have no legal binding effect -and- a new covenant necessitates the giving of a new law.
James,
I warned you. Now your comments will be deleted. You may email me if you would like to say anymore to me. But your comments will be deleted until you show maturity and brotherly kindness.
Scott,
Hey man, all I know is that those so-called Christian MMA guys must rip “turn the other cheek” out of their Bibles before they step into the cage. If you’re cool with that, then you’re beyond my help!
No, I haven’t read Waldron’s book. I’m actually not all that motivated to read a book which is a response to a single sermon, especially since MacArthur’s message was hardly an exegetical defense of premillennialism. Of course, if a free copy were to be sent my way (ahem), I’m sure I could find the time to give it a look.
I know I keep saying this, but we still gotta hook up some time. Summer was supposed to be slower schedule-wise, but my projections were a little off.
Matt,
You said, “Hey man, all I know is that those so-called Christian MMA guys must rip “turn the other cheek” out of their Bibles before they step into the cage. If you’re cool with that, then you’re beyond my help!”
Were you serious?
Mark
**Waldron’s response may turn out one day to be viewed as the first signs of the end of the Dispensational Theology era.**
Keep hoping. Steven J. Lawson, in my opinion is the guy that will continue MacArthur’s theology. Also, many of the graduates of the Master’s Seminary are growing here in Cali.
I used to be covenant theology, but I recently switched to dispensationalism. So needless to say,this opinion is biased. Thanks for the review. I will have to check out the book.
-Alex
Johnmark: “Were you serious?”
Serious as a triple-triangle-rear-naked-armbar! Or whatever you barbarians call it. And the sad thing is that whenever I bring this up to Scott, he simply dismisses me by saying that the Sermon on the Mount isn’t for today. Something about it being part of another dispensation. Is that right, Scott?
(No, Johnmark, not serious at all.)
Jason, nothing in my second post was offensive either. I wonder where your brotherly love and maturity were when you called me a dork. I honestly don’t care, but your beam is blinding you.
Feel free to try and answer those questions by the way.
Scott, you might want to mix in a theologically intelligent thought once in awhile to shake the sidekick status.
James writes: “Jason, nothing in my second post was offensive either…. Scott, you might want to mix in a theologically intelligent thought once in awhile to shake the sidekick status.”
At this point, any commentary by me would only obscure the obvious.
James,
I am a premillennialist, but I find your inciteful comments to Jason and Scott offensive. You are discrediting your theological credibility. Why should they consider your questions when you are being inciteful. The way you are interacting does not evidence any grace or kindness (2 Tim 2:24). Perhaps you should examine your heart and not comment until you are prepared to do so with grace and humility, even if you disagree with them? Jason has been patient with you.
Note to any and all who may benefit:
Prozac made a tremendous improvement in my attitude. I’m sure that will be considered heresy by some. That’s OK. We can chat offline.
I inherited clinical depression. Apparently something is amiss in my brain chemistry which causes me to be irritable and suicidal (at times) when not on medication or when taking other prescription medications.
This is intended to be a public service announcement.
Anonymous, Jason has not been patient at all. He has slandered my posts after deleting them.
You may find this odd, but I am not trying to establish theological credibility with amills. They do not understand eschatology. It is akin to throwing pearls before swine.
Perhaps some of you find this offensive, but ask yourself, would Paul have been so kind to amills or would he have rebuked them with strong language as well?
Study the history of amill and see where it comes from people. Don’t give them a pass simply because they are calvinists (of which I am also).
James,
You bring up an interesting point. If premillennialism is true (I believe it is) or if they do not understand some important elements of eschatology (I have not read Waldron’s book, but have read all the blog posts that contributed to his book as well as his other book on eschatology), then how would the apostle Paul treat our amillennial brothers? I believe he would treat them like believers, common recipients of God’s grace. If I understand from Scripture we are to speak the truth in love to build up the church (Eph 4:15-16). I’m not doubting if you’re speaking the truth, I’m doubting whether or not you’re doing it in love. It’s hard to recognize love in your comments, so if I was an amillennialist (and let me reiterate I am not), then I would have a hard time taking your comments seriously. I think Paul would reserve his strongest language to those deserting the gospel (i.e. Galatians). I think you can use strong words of truth, but still do it in love, without inciteful comments like, “Scott, you might want to mix in a theologically intelligent thought once in awhile to shake the sidekick status.”–unless that comment was a sarcastic joke to someone you know well. Anyhow, I’ve said enough, I’ll leave it between you and the Lord.
I needlessly reviewed my comments above and to even my surprise found no mention of a “dork.”
And I choose to leave up Jame’s last two comments as to a reminder that such comes with the territory when one attempts to have theological discourse. We must all learn to be patient and kind when learning together… and we must learn when to spot those among us who have no intentions of being patient, kind or learning.
Matt,my elusive Premil friend, it is good to hear from you. I am sure much of your comments above are tongue-in-cheek, especially when you say that you would not read a book that is a response to a sermon. Oh how many books do we all own that are about men’s sermons: I have many about Edward’s sermons, Spurgeon’s sermons, etc. John Piper writes responses to such sermons all the time. In fact, nearly every MacArthur book I have read I can find in sermonic form on GTY dot org. So, yeah, I’m sure you were just trying to get a free book. Somebody send poor Matt a free copy, he must have spent all his allowance on the new Left Behind X-box game
In all seriousness, I am glad that many of you are going to take the time to read Waldron’s book. I will probably discuss sections of it in more detail on Fide-o in the future.
By the way, I love to hear Steve Lawson preach. As you might say, “He’s my kind of preacher” from a style standpoint. But I don’t think that style will carry the load that will be necessary to keep Dispensationalism alive.
And does anyone know: how many students from Masters are Dispy and how many are CT?
I am a TMS grad and CT. I think there are many more Dispensationalist TMS grads than CTers – just an opinion. However, I also think there are more TMS CTers than some might think.
Ouch James, that hurt a little. I had to go take half a baby aspirin and lay down for a while.
Jason,
Ironically, I’m pretty sure that most everything I said above was tongue in cheek EXCEPT my comment about Dr. Waldron’s book. But I certainly didn’t mean it as an insult, just that I would be less motivated to read a book written in response to a single sermon, especially since that sermon was not an exegetical defense of premillennialism. Incidentally, I’ve never actually heard of a book being written in response to a single sermon; maybe you have some books on your shelf that I don’t have on mine. So by all means, yes, somebody send me a free copy of the book!
Matt, I think the book is a result of possible unintended repercussions for many in the reformed community. I have spoken with many, many guys who were very much shocked by Dr. MacArthurs comments. He did basically say if we didn’t agree we didn’t have any self-respect.
Personally I didn’t take it personal. I have been around Grace Church, MTS grads, and the Shepherds Conference enough to know there was not real ill will intended. However, a lot of guys feel like he drew some lines in the sand, and said choose sides. While they didn’t totally right him off they did take offense and put up some red flags. I was sitting in the gym watching on the screen when he preached it and I even felt it was in poor taste, considering who was slated to speak that year and the previous years.
A lot of the guys who are close to Dr. MacArthurs ministry that I have spoken with don’t see what the big deal is. It apparently is a bigger deal than a lot of people realize. Big enough for Dr. Waldron to right a book about it.
As for me I listened to one of Dr. MacArthurs sermons on the Anatomy of the Church this morning and continue to have great respect for him. So I just put this on my list of things I disagree with him on. It is now up to 4. I will admit however, this particular disagreement is slightly larger than the other 3.
Scott said,
“A lot of the guys who are close to Dr. MacArthurs ministry that I have spoken with don’t see what the big deal is. It apparently is a bigger deal than a lot of people realize. Big enough for Dr. Waldron to right a book about it.”
The reason why the book exists (at least in part) is because Dr. Waldron felt that Dr. MacArthur’s lecture did not accurately reflect contemporary amillennialism. I must say, as a TMS grad, some of the arguments seemed to be the same I heard in the late 1980s which, I think, were borrowed from Charles Fienberg from 40 years prior.
As far as not reading the book due to its being a critique of one message, a TMS man said it was one of the best defenses of premillennialism he had heard in a long time.
Matt wonders why a book would be written about a sermon.
I have actually heard sermons preached about books at GCC (e.g. “The Prayer of Jabez,” “Purpose Driven Life”).
Due to my biblical view of preaching, I think a sermon is way more important than a book. I could think of many more reasons why a book should be written about a sermon than a sermon be preached about a book.
So I have no problem with either but find it interesting that Dispys may have a problem with Waldron writing such a book.
Rich B.,
You are right to say that there are lot more TMS alum who embrace CT than many acknowledge. I am one and I know quite a few others. To yepiz I can only ask why he held to CT to begin with. Brother, have you read Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin, etc? These writers are among the more sophisticated CT scholars of the twentieth century and well worth your time. Regards.
To be fair to Matt W., he did say that under the right circumstances he could find time to read it. Also, he may have other compelling reasons not to read it at this time. IMO, he’s off the hook. Matt, fly, you’re free.
As time unfolds, if MacArthur’s arguments accurately reflect the exegetical work of those who hold his view, the Waldron boook will be a handy tool to see how one contemporary amillennialist deals with such arguments. We shall see.
Back to MacArthur: He has moved me to quit listening to him. There are just too many good reformed preachers. I agree with Arthur Pink concerning Dispensationalism – whatever the particular changed face. And boy is it ever changing. MacArthur is a Dispensationalist, as are a host of TMS grads.
Matt: This is a real blog!