MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto

PuritanCovenanter · #1 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 05:28 PM

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 · #2 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 05:30 PM

Thanks for the heads up Martin.

Daniel Ritchie · #3 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 07:13 PM

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

DMcFadden · #4 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 07:27 PM

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

Mayflower · #5 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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

Me too

!!

Wannabee · #6 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:30 AM

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 · #7 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 12:41 AM

I read his blog too.

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

DMcFadden · #8 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danmpem

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.

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 · #9 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

..."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...

PuritanBouncer · #10 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by danmpem

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.

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 · #11 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

..."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 · #12 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:10 AM

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 · #13 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 03:19 AM

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 · #14 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:16 PM

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

)

Daniel Ritchie · #15 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

..."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 · #16 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:40 PM

I've never understood why people got all excited over this. He's pre-mil (dispy), 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 · #17 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:44 PM

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

Daniel Ritchie · #18 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

I've never understood why people got all excited over this. He's pre-mil (dispy), 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 · #19 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

..."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 · #20 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

I've never understood why people got all excited over this. He's pre-mil (dispy), 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.