Believers Are Reigning With Christ Right Now

God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus - Eph. 2:4-6

I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. – Rev. 20:4

What’s More Important, Being Historically Reformed or Foundationally Biblical?

WARNING! Emotional diatribe…

While reading through some of the fallout from MacArthur’s speech against Amillennialism during the opening session of the Shepherds’ Conference, I noticed a lot of talk about Reformed this and Reformed that, and I took note of one particular comment (I forget now on which blog I read it) that said MacArthur should not be considered Reformed. The premise was that, since he did not hold to all the tenants of Reformed Theology (which includes the Amil view of eschatology), then he is technically not Reformed.

That may indeed disqualify Johnny Mac from being considered within the bounds of the Reformed camp (along with other departures of his theology from the historic Reformed tradition), as Kim Riddlebarger asserts in his latest post titled, Why John MacArthur is Not “Reformed”. After reading that blog comment that said MacArthur should not be considered Reformed, I mentioned it to one of my elders Sunday after church, and his reaction was one of disagreement and caution in making such a distinction – I will explain this further in just a little bit.

Anyway, I was wondering when someone highly visible within the Reformed camp would publicly make this assertion that MacArthur is not “Reformed”, and I didn’t have to wait long, as evidenced by Riddlebarger’s post. In his article, Dr. Riddlebarger provides an essay from Richard Muller titled, “How Many Points”, in which he attempts to demonstrate that, unless one holds to all of the historic Reformed traditions and teachings (including those beyond the five points of Calvinism), then one – by denying the very points that make up traditional Reformed Theology – is not Reformed.

Muller says the following in his essay:

If some of the less-famous points of Reformed theology, like the baptism of infants, justification by grace alone through faith, the necessity of a thankful obedience consequent upon our faith and justification (the “third use of the law”), the identification of sacraments as means of grace, the so-called amillennial view of the end of the world, and so forth, are stripped away or forgotten, the remaining famous five make very little sense.

He goes on to say that one who doesn’t hold to all of the points of Reformed Theology (way beyond the initial five points of Calvinism) is not “Reformed”. Quite honestly, I can live with that. If those who hold to what I would consider to be the historic Reformed tradition want to separate themselves from everyone else who hold to and love the Doctrines of Grace – but who don’t happen to share their belief in things like infant baptism, the Amil end times view, and the authority of certain creeds and confessions – and want to place them outside of the title of being “Reformed”, then I have a question for them and for you.

Should you and I be more concerned with our adherence (or lack thereof) to the traditional Reformed position, or should our primary focus be on making sure we are seeking to be biblical, even if that means departing from the “Reformed” faith when we see Scripture departing from that tradition? In other words, what should be our foundation, our basis, from which everything else flows? Should we start with Reformed Theology and work outward from there, or should we start with the Doctrines of Grace and go from there? The Reformed tradition may center around the Doctrines of Grace…but it doesn’t own them.

Wow, Brian…you sound a little peeved. Well, yes…I guess I am just a little bit put off by Dr. Riddlebarger’s article because, not only would MacArthur be disqualified from being on the Reformed team for his Dispy Premil view, but I would also be disqualified for my disagreement with infant baptism. According to Riddlebarger and Muller, I too am not Reformed. And you know what? I’m okay with that. What I’m not okay with is a perceived mentality that seems to say, “Na, na, na, na, na. We are truly Reformed and you are not, because you don’t hold to every jot and tittle of traditional Reformed Theology.”.

And, with all due respect to both Riddlebarger and Muller, my response is, “So what?!?!”. So what if I can’t call myself Reformed in the traditional sense of the word? I don’t even like the term anyway, because it implies that those who are Reformed have made it, they’ve reached the pinnacle of theological hubris. Instead, I prefer to be labeled reformational (I got that from my pastor), which implies that, although we hold to the Doctrines of Grace and the sovereignty of God in all things, we understand and admit that we are always learning, always reforming…we are reformational.

I better stop before this turns into a rant (I know…too late). My point is that we need to be extremely careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I may disagree with MacArthur’s end times position. I may think it is seriously unbiblical. But, come on, the man has been used mightily of God to further His kingdom and spread the truth of God’s sovereignty over all things. He is a true soldier on the front lines fighting for the true God of the Bible. He is perhaps the best expositor of Scripture in our lifetime. And if his end times view and my baptism view disqualify us and others for membership in the official Reformed party…then I say, “So be it!”.

Let’s strive for biblical unity over and above traditional preeminence.

On the Road…So Check Out These Posts

Today is a traveling day for Pam and me. Yes, we are heading down to Orlando for the Ligonier Conference a little early to enjoy some additional time together (the 20th marks our 14th wedding anniversary, and we use this trip each year for that celebration as well). I will continue posting during the week, but for today I thought I would do a little blogspotting. Check out the following articles from around the blogosphere:

• From the Old Truth site comes this excerpt -

The unfolding of end times events is the most difficult area of biblical interpretation. How do you know what’s symbolic and what’s figurative? Are the rapture and the 2nd coming one event or two? In this Q&A audio clip, RC Sproul lists the various views of eschatology, and concludes that out of all of them, there is only one of them that he would say is impossible because it’s . . . well – it’s downright goofy (his word not mine). Sproul’s remarks are an interesting contrast to what we’ve been hearing from the Shepherd’s Conference this past week. … Read more here.

• Jason over at Fide-O asks if the Bible really means what it says.

• James White is claiming credit for Carla’s empty tomb t-shirt!

• Phil Johnson quotes Spurgeon in support of Premillennialism, but I can’t seem to get anyone in the comments section to provide Scriptural support for the Premil’s “gap theory”, which places 1000 years between Christ’s second coming and the resurrection of all things.

• Jeremy at Doxoblogy explains the interpretive principle he uses, God’s glory in Christ.

Three Strikes Against Premil End Times Theology

With baseball just around the corner, I thought I would throw some pitches to the Premil camp and see how their spring training is going…it ain’t lookin’ good.

There are three things concerning Premillennialism that I believe are inconsistent with Scripture and are just simply irreconcilable. This by no means is an in-depth look into these points, but just meant to be a quick summation of a few areas that I believe are insurmountable to make Premillennialism work as a biblical position of end times theology. The following are what I consider to be three strikes against the Premillers.

STRIKE ONE – Who’s your daddy? Mine is Abraham, according to promise.

The fact that the New Testament demonstrates that the promises to Abraham are fulfilled to both Jew and Gentile in the church appears to strike a serious blow to the view that there still remains some special yet-to-be-fulfilled promises for the national Jew (such as land). I don’t see this as any type of replacement theology, but as fulfillment theology. The NT provides the proper commentary and instructs us how to interpret the OT.

• There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. – Gal. 3:28-29

• That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. – Rom. 9:8

• For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother…And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. – Gal. 4:22-26, 28 (keep in mind Paul is writing to a Gentile church here)

STRIKE TWO – Where’s the gap?!?! (remember the Wendy’s ‘Where’s the beef?’ commercials? Say it like that.)

Premillers place a one-thousand year gap between Christ’s second coming, judgment and the renewal of all things (otherwise, you would have sin in the presence of the new heavens and new earth, and that after He has already judged the wicked and cast them into utter darkness). A gap between these events is nowhere to be found in Scripture. In fact, just the opposite can be easily demonstrated.

• For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed. – 2 Thes. 1:6-10

• For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. – Rom. 8:19-23
  • Is anyone going to seriously try and split apart the revealing of the sons of God (where creation is renewed) from the redemption of the body (where we are renewed)?

• But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right, “Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”…Then He will also say to those on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels”…These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. – Matt. 25:31-34, 41, 46

STRIKE THREE – Sacrifices in a temple in the presence of Christ? I don’t think so!

I don’t know if this view is held by all Premillers, but it seems to be a consistent part of their theology that there will be a future, literal temple constructed during the thousand year reign of Christ…in which will take place the sacrifice of animals…in the very presence of Christ Himself! This is one that I just don’t get at all. How can one even suggest that after Jesus returns, He will permit the practice of sacrifices in a rebuilt temple…when He is the temple, and He is the once for all sacrifice! What does ‘once for all’ mean, anyway?!?! These are just a couple of passages, but I would recommend at least reading Hebrews, chapters 7 through 10 to get a good perspective of the truth – that I think is clearly evident – that Christ would be appalled to sit and observe useless animal sacrifices, when He has already offered Himself as a propitiation (I love that word).

• And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. – Heb 9:27-28
  

• But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord:I will put my laws on their hearts,and write them on their minds, then he adds, I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more. Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. – Heb 10:12-18

These are just a few critical areas that I believe the Premiller cannot address consistently and biblically with his position. There are many more that we could address, including the incorrect interpretation of Daniel 9 with respect to who makes a covenant with Israel (but that’s another topic for another post).

Some Helpful Links Regarding End Times Positions

Jeremy Weaver at Doxoblogy and Jason Robertson at Fide-O (who I was fortunate enough to share some radio time with the other day), have both posted some very helpful information regarding the different millennial positions.

Jeremy has posted a brief overview of each of the three positions, along with some very helpful links from Lorraine Boettner, Kim Riddlebarger and others.

Jason has provided a very good overview of what the Amil position is and what it is not.

Of particular interest to me is a list he provides (more complete than the one he gives in the link above) in an August ‘06 post of those individuals who hold to the Amil position, as well as a list of confessions that hold to the Amil position.

Among the individuals listed, I took notice of – among the familiar Luther and Calvin – Mark Dever, A.W. Pink, James Boyce, C.J. Mahaney, John Frame, Abraham Kuyper and James White.

Among the confessions that Jason lists that are Amil in their theology are The Westminster Confession of Faith-1647, The London Baptist Confession-1689, and The New Hampshire Baptist Confession-1833.

Follow the links above to the Fide-O site for a thorough look.

UPDATE: Kim Riddlebarger has also posted with some great resources on this very important topic.

Johnny Mac’s Amil Attack Discussed on the Radio

I mentioned in my previous post that I had received an email from Keving Boling, one of the hosts of a radio call-in show – Calling for Truth – based in SC, asking me to be a part of a radio program about what MacArthur said in his speech against Amillennialism on Wednesday at the Shepherd’s Conference, and the resulting discussion (that’s putting it mildly) that has erupted in the blogosphere.

I cannot stress to you enough how nervous, unprepared, ill-equipped (and all other things relating to my general inability to discuss such a topic…on the radio even) and downright scared I was to call in and join this conversation. Having said that, I thought the whole program went really well. Jason Robertson over at Fide-O also called in from the conference, and I thought everything was done in a very Christ-honoring and MacArthur-respecting way. It was not a slam fest. It was a candid look into some of the things that Dr. MacArthur said in his speech on Wednesday, and I am glad that I decided to be a part of it.

I would encourage you to listen to the program, and use it and this whole discussion to challenge your thinking, and to sharpen you in knowing what you believe and why. MacArthur is right about one thing…God didn’t design that we should be confused about the study of last things (eschatology). We can know, and we should strive to know…but our knowing should be well-grounded in a consistent interpretation of the word of God.

More Updates on the MacArthur – Amil Controversy

I received an email asking me to call in to a radio show to discuss the whole topic of what MacArthur spoke about in the opening session of the Shepherd’s Conference. The program is called Calling for Truth. Here is the information about today’s broadcast:

The program airs from 1:05pm until 2:00pm EST. You can
listen live at either www.callingfortruth.org or at
www.sermonaudio.com/callingfortruth

The SermonAudio description of today’s program can be found here.

So, if you want to potentially hear someone make a fool of himself (me), then listen to today’s program, because I guess I will go ahead and call in to see what gets discussed.

Additionally, Jason over at Fide-O has a new post concerning MacArthur’s question in his speech of whether or not Jesus was Amil. It is worth reading.

MacArthur’s Diatribe Against Amillennialism Weighed and Found Wanting

John MacArthur delivered the first message today at the Shepherd’s Conference, and it apparently was a doozy! It seems that Dr. MacArthur put forth everything in his arsenal in an attempt to dis-qualify Amillennialism as, not only an invalid eschatology, but also as being anti-Reformed Theology. I have read the post from Tim Challies (who appears reluctant to go in-depth on this one). I have also read Jason Robertson’s post over at Fide-O, which is a much more detailed analysis of what MacArthur said today at the conference.

With this post I wanted to go on record as completely disagreeing with MacArthur concerning his end times view, and to express my amazement at some of what he said today (which you can find in Jason’s post over at Fide-O).

I may post something in more detail on this, but for now I just wanted to point you to two things regarding MacArthur’s comments today: the discussion going on at challies.com, and Jason’s post at Fide-O.

UPDATE: As I expected, Kim Riddlebarger has some thoughts on all of this (though he is waiting until he reads the full transcript of MacArthurs speech before commenting at length).

UPDATE II: Adrian Warnock also has a post resulting from MacArthur’s speech against amillennialism that kicked off the Shepherd’s Conference.