MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto

[PuritanCovenanter]

Sam Waldron has responded to John MacArthur's proclamation that Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist, which MacArthur made during the last years Shepherd's Conference. I talked to Eddie Goodwin today and he said the book should be in house and ready to ship early next week.


RBAP -- Reformed Baptist Academic Press

List price $12.99.
The page count is 172 pages.
The book is a 6x9 paperback.
Endorsements from James M. Renihan, Kim Riddlebarger & Cornelis Venema
At the 2007 Shepherds' Conference, Pastor John MacArthur delivered a controversial message entitled, "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist". In this book, Dr. Sam Waldron addresses the assertions of MacArthur historically, exegetically and theologically. Although his arguments are rigorous, the entire tenor of the book is level-headed and irenic. This "friendly response" grants modern day Amillennialists the opportunity to thoughtfully engage their Dispensational brethren.


Reformed Baptist Academic Press

Here is what the web site says.

At the 2007 Shepherds' Conference, Pastor John MacArthur delivered a controversial message entitled, "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist." In this book, Dr. Sam Waldron addresses the assertions of MacArthur historically, exegetically and theologically. Although his arguments are rigorous, the entire tenor of the book is level-headed and irenic. This "friendly response" grants modern day Amillennialists the opportunity to thoughtfully engage their Dispensational brethren. With charity, this book exposes the fallacies--historical, exegetical and theological--inherent in Dr. MacArthur's presentation...Thank you, Dr. Waldron, for showing us how a theological refutation may be done with grace and kindness...James M. Renihan, Ph.D. Samuel Waldron's "friendly response" to John MacArthur's "millennial manifesto" will go a long way toward setting the record straight about what Reformed amillennialists actually believe about the church and Israel...I highly recommend this book to all who are interested in this controversy...Kim Riddlebarger, Ph.D. Samuel Waldron's response to John MacArthur's controversial sermon, "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist," is a gem. In a gentle spirit, and with an awareness of what is at stake, Waldron makes a persuasive case against MacArthur's unlikely claim that true Calvinists must subscribe to the tenets of dispensational premillennialism...Cornelis Venema, Ph.D.




I can't wait to get my copy.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thanks for the heads up Martin.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

One of my denominations theological students wrote a paper on this very issue for his course this year.

 

[DMcFadden]

I ordered mine as soon as I saw your post, Randy.

 

[Mayflower]

I ordered mine as soon as I saw your post, Randy.

Me too !!

 

[Wannabee]

Much of what is in the book is found on his blog. I haven't read it all, but from what I have read Dr. Waldron has handled this very responsibly, as a gentleman. His respect for John MacArthur is evident in his interaction with the subject. Being premil, I didn't agree with his conclusions. But I do appreciate his contribution and have learned much from reading his blog entries.

 

[danmpem]

I read his blog too.

How many hear actually heard or read MacArthur's message?

 

[DMcFadden]

I read his blog too.

How many hear actually heard or read MacArthur's message?

I listened to the MP3 of it. My oh my. He certainly tweaked the noses of his Amil/Postmil listeners! He chided them for not applying their own hermeneutic and belief in the DoG consistently. In MacArthur's mind, the election of Israel exemplifies the sovereign grace of God, not dependent upon works. Premil eschatology, opines MacArthur, most faithfully represents the logical extension of the Magisterial Reformer's theology, despite themselves.

Are you sure he was playing with them, you say? Check out this quote.

“But bottom line here, of all people on the planet to be pre-millennialist it should be Calvinists; those who love sovereign election. Let's leave amillennialism for the Arminians. It's perfect! [laughter] It's ideal. It's a no-brainer. God elects nobody and preserves nobody. Perfect! Arminians make great amillennialists. It's consistent. But not for those who live and breathe the rarified air of sovereign electing grace. That makes no sense. We can leave amillennialism to the process theologians . . . or the ‘openness' people who think God is becoming what he will be, and he's getting better because as every day goes by he gets more information. And as he gets more information he's figuring out whether or not in fact he can keep some of the promises he made without having to adjust all of them based upon lack of information when he originally made them. Let’s leave amillennialism to the charismatics in the semi-Pelagians and other sorts of go in and out of salvation willy-nilly; makes sense for their theology . . .”

Check out Kim Riddlebarger's reply to MacArthur: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur

 

[bookslover]

..."Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist"... This "friendly response" grants modern day Amillennialists the opportunity to thoughtfully engage their Dispensational brethren.

Why does virtually everyone automatically associate premillennialism with dispensationalism? The former was around long before the latter showed up. Sigh...

 

[ReformedWretch]

I read his blog too.

How many hear actually heard or read MacArthur's message?

I listened to the MP3 of it. My oh my. He certainly tweaked the noses of his Amil/Postmil listeners! He chided them for not applying their own hermeneutic and belief in the DoG consistently. In MacArthur's mind, the election of Israel exemplifies the sovereign grace of God, not dependent upon works. Premil eschatology, opines MacArthur, most faithfully represents the logical extension of the Magisterial Reformer's theology, despite themselves.

Are you sure he was playing with them, you say? Check out this quote.

“But bottom line here, of all people on the planet to be pre-millennialist it should be Calvinists; those who love sovereign election. Let's leave amillennialism for the Arminians. It's perfect! [laughter] It's ideal. It's a no-brainer. God elects nobody and preserves nobody. Perfect! Arminians make great amillennialists. It's consistent. But not for those who live and breathe the rarified air of sovereign electing grace. That makes no sense. We can leave amillennialism to the process theologians . . . or the ‘openness' people who think God is becoming what he will be, and he's getting better because as every day goes by he gets more information. And as he gets more information he's figuring out whether or not in fact he can keep some of the promises he made without having to adjust all of them based upon lack of information when he originally made them. Let’s leave amillennialism to the charismatics in the semi-Pelagians and other sorts of go in and out of salvation willy-nilly; makes sense for their theology . . .”

Check out Kim Riddlebarger's reply to MacArthur: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur

Wow

 

[DMcFadden]

..."Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist"... This "friendly response" grants modern day Amillennialists the opportunity to thoughtfully engage their Dispensational brethren.

Why does virtually everyone automatically associate premillennialism with dispensationalism? The former was around long before the latter showed up. Sigh...

The Apostle Paul taught premillennialism and he wasn't dispensational?

 

[danmpem]

Thanks, Dennis. Yeah, I've seen Riddlebarger's response as well. I remember reading that MacArthur said that if Calvin were alive today, he would be premil. I find that very, very difficult to swallow.

 

[DMcFadden]

MacArthur was pretty outrageous. Several of my Amil friends got pretty exercised at him.

The man could opine that 2 + 2 = 5 in a convincing and completely authoritative voice.

 

[danmpem]

The thing that gets me is that I am, for the most part, a premil. But I don't agree with many of the statements he made. It didn't seem to be a talk that would change anyone else's mind on eschatology, but rather give premil's more to .

(That's right, they were eating popcorn at Shepherd's while watching the show )

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

..."Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist"... This "friendly response" grants modern day Amillennialists the opportunity to thoughtfully engage their Dispensational brethren.

Why does virtually everyone automatically associate premillennialism with dispensationalism? The former was around long before the latter showed up. Sigh...

The Apostle Paul taught premillennialism and he wasn't dispensational?

Hey, Dennis you're mistaken, Paul taught postmillennialism.

 

[Jon Peters]

I've never understood why people got all excited over this. He's pre-mil (Dispensational), so why wouldn't he opine that his system is the most consistant expression of Calvinism? I think his comments were silly and wrong, but it's John MacArthur, right? Since when was he the spokeperson for Reformed theology such that we (the Reformed) should get all upset about what he says? This is not to say that a response is not warranted, but to be upset over his comments? Are we that thin-skinned?

 

[Jon Peters]

My previous comment sounds more harsh than I meant it. I should have included a smiley face or something.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I've never understood why people got all excited over this. He's pre-mil (Dispensational), so why wouldn't he opine that his system is the most consistant expression of Calvinism? I think his comments were silly and wrong, but it's John MacArthur, right? Since when was he the spokeperson for Reformed theology such that we (the Reformed) should get all upset about what he says? This is not to say that a response is not warranted, but to be upset over his comments? Are we that thin-skinned?

I agree, we should not get upset about his comments. He is allowed to make them, I think they are wrong, but I am not losing any sleep over them.

 

[Zenas]

..."Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist"... This "friendly response" grants modern day Amillennialists the opportunity to thoughtfully engage their Dispensational brethren.

Why does virtually everyone automatically associate premillennialism with dispensationalism? The former was around long before the latter showed up. Sigh...

Yeah, I was getting confused. I didn't think Johnny Mac was arguing for dispensationalism, only Premillinialism.

 

[Zenas]

I've never understood why people got all excited over this. He's pre-mil (Dispensational), so why wouldn't he opine that his system is the most consistant expression of Calvinism? I think his comments were silly and wrong, but it's John MacArthur, right? Since when was he the spokeperson for Reformed theology such that we (the Reformed) should get all upset about what he says? This is not to say that a response is not warranted, but to be upset over his comments? Are we that thin-skinned?

I agree, we should not get upset about his comments. He is allowed to make them, I think they are wrong, but I am not losing any sleep over them.

Who cares what he says about millennial positions? That's like arguing about who has the better color shirt in my book.

 

[Jon Peters]

I've never understood why people got all excited over this. He's pre-mil (Dispensational), so why wouldn't he opine that his system is the most consistant expression of Calvinism? I think his comments were silly and wrong, but it's John MacArthur, right? Since when was he the spokeperson for Reformed theology such that we (the Reformed) should get all upset about what he says? This is not to say that a response is not warranted, but to be upset over his comments? Are we that thin-skinned?

I agree, we should not get upset about his comments. He is allowed to make them, I think they are wrong, but I am not losing any sleep over them.

Who cares what he says about millennial positions? That's like arguing about who has the better color shirt in my book.

I like the discussion; I think it's definitely worth having, but if a Dispensational premil comes out and defends the Dispensational premil position, we shouldn't be surprised. I attended his church for a few months (for as long as I could take it, but I was trying to meet girls and it's a big church) and heard him on consecutive Sundays preach on unlimited atonement and then limited atonement, that is, arguing for each position. The impression that those I spoke with about this was that JM believed both positions at the same time. I've just never been convinced that he's a great theologian. I never really cared for his preaching either. Sorry,

 

[Zenas]

...but I Was Trying To Meet Girls And It's A Big Church...

Lol!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I attended his church for a few months (for as long as I could take it, but I was trying to meet girls and it's a big church)

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think people got upset not because he holds to pretribulationism, which was certainly no secret, but because his title was something like "Why every self-respecting Calvinist should be premillennial" and the message was delivered at a pastors conference that had a lot of amils present. But I don't think he was claiming to speak for Calvinism and has certainly never claimed to be Reformed in the confessional sense. I never heard MacArthur's message and haven't seen a transcript, but implicit in the title is the idea that becoming Reformed in soteriology doesn't necessitate abandoning premillenialism in favor of amillenialism as many Calvinistic Baptists have done.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think it is funny. Go JohN! I am not premil but I hope he gives everyone a run for thier money.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

John Mac is progressive in his dispensationalism. If one is dispensational it takes a road off the path from Covenant Theology which is the Reformed Position. Historic Premil can also hold to Covenant Theology. But John Mac's position concerning Israel and the Church is dispensational and not Historic Premil which can hold that Israel and the Church are the same.

By taking on John Mac's dispensational position one has to abandon Covenant Theology. And that is not Reformed nor really Calvinistic in its soteriology. After all Christ fulfilled the CofW to redeem those condemned by it.

So you aren't Premil Jacob? I thought you had recently went Premil this last year.

 

[RamistThomist]

I went premil as a reaction of some amillennialists' hyper-spiritualizing OT passages that emphasize the goodness of the created order. I then re-read some stuff on partial preterism and am more of a partial preterist than anything else.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am amil and partial preterist.

 

[mshingler]

I listened to the MP3 a couple of times. Ironically, it was one of several things that were instrumental in causing me to re-evaluate my dispensational hermeneutic. I thought some of the arguments against amil. were simply straw-man arguments. One thing that particularly stood out to me, though, was that he made a statement to the effect of, "If we are going to change our hermeneutic, I think we need a word from the Lord." [I'm sure I didn't quote that exactly.] That statement really helped to solidify a problem that had been in the back of my mind for a while. I would have asked him, "Where did you get the hermeneutic you are applying in the first place - the one that you would have to have a word from God in order to change?" As I thought through my own hermeneutical presuppositions, which I learned from a dispensational perspective, it seemed to me that there are presuppositions that are rooted more in the enlightenment rationalism than in Scripture. If I really need a word from the Lord on hermeneutics (and I think I do), then surely I should be looking for it in God's Word and not bringing my hermeneutics to God's Word. Hence, it seems more sensible to me, and more in line with the whole reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, that the New Testament interprets the Old and also gives the pattern by which I should try and interpret the Old Testament as a whole.
Anyway, that was a long way of saying that MacArthur's talk, rather than affirming my dispensational views actually had the opposite effect.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I posted this in another thread but think it would do good here also.

I really appreciated this book.

I recommend it highly.

It gives some good historical info along with being an optimistic amil position.

Promise of the Future :: Cornelis P. Venema :: Contemporary Authors :: Modern Authors :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books and Resources for Christians