# Why John MacArthur Is Not "Reformed"



## Philip A

Kim Riddlebarger has an essential point to make on the Riddleblog, taking his lead from Richard Muller. Unless and until we can get back to an objective definition of terms, the modern resurgence of interest in so-called "Reformed" Theology will disappear like any other fad.

I have many Baptist friends whom I love dearly (used to be one myself!), and I can respect John MacArthur as a Christian and acknowledge the many ways he has helped other Christians, but Muller is right:



> [MacArthur's] doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of "Calvinism" at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

I disagree, this man is not ashamed of the gospel, in his own words and i believe him.

He is very Spurgeon like in his presentations and adheres to the doctrines of grace, i suspect the Dispensational in him will work itself out in due time but he understands grace and that is frankly what matters above all else.

Dispensationalism may have been tossed out of Geneva but MacArthur is a gospel preacher inspite of this error in his end times certainty.


----------



## Philip A

No disagreement there at all. Nobody is saying that MacArthur is not preaching the gospel, or that he is ashamed of it. The article addresses the fact that he's not really "Reformed". The article is about truth in advertizing. I highly recommend you read it


----------



## Poimen

Philip, Drs. Muller and Riddlebarger are correct. John MacArthur is not Reformed by definition though he does have many excellent things to say and teaches many truths which are sorely lacking in the church. 

As the Dr. Riddlebarger notes: 



> Before you read Muller's essay, please remember that the issue he's tackling is not whether those outside the Reformed churches are truly Christians (they are, if they are trusting in Christ). Muller is not saying that they have nothing good to contribute to the cause of Christ, nor any other such thing.



The issue is not solely about what 'Reformed' means either. It also has to do with what constitutes a true church. Furthermore, let us not bow to ecumenical pressures to make a lowest common denominator church and jettison our Reformed heritage which is greater and vaster than 'The Five Points of Calvinism'. Otherwise we are just Reformed 'fundamentalists' instead of preachers and followers of the 'whole counsel of God'. (Acts 20:27)


----------



## Herald

I don't believe MacArthur considers himself Reformed, in the Geneva sense of the word. This seems to be a discussion among those who are trying to define MacArthur and those similar to him.


----------



## Herald

For what it's worth, I don't consider myself Reformed according to the Geneva definition. I am Reformed-friendly.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

BaptistInCrisis said:


> For what it's worth, I don't consider myself Reformed according to the Geneva definition. I am Reformed-friendly.



HERETIC!


----------



## Chris

No Longer A Libertine said:


> HERETIC!




<--heretic, too.


----------



## KMK

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Dispensationalism may have been tossed out of Geneva but MacArthur is a gospel preacher inspite of this error in his end times certainty.



If 'getting tossed out of Geneva' is the definition of 'non-reformed', then I would agree that myself and none of my Baptist brethren are 'reformed'. 

Oh, well...


----------



## tcalbrecht

Good article. I'll take the phrase "amillennial" all orthodox millennial positions. 

As a son of Westminster, I can rest comfortably in the knowledge that postmillennialism is well within the boundaries of Reformed confessional orthodoxy.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> If 'getting tossed out of Geneva' is the definition of 'non-reformed', then I would agree that myself and none of my Baptist brethren are 'reformed'.
> 
> Oh, well...



Hey, I'm not ashamed to say that I am not a Genevaite. I am pleased to be a Baptist. I am also pleased to learn and fellowship with my Reformed brethren.


----------



## panta dokimazete

(Maybe I should change my sig to reflect "Reformed friendly"  )


----------



## B.J.

At least MacArthur got "5" things right about Christian Theology.


----------



## Philip A

jdlongmire said:


> (Maybe I should change my sig to reflect "Reformed friendly"  )



We could have a revival service, and y'all can lay down your "Reformed" nametags along with your smokes!

But I'd still have a beer with any baptist who knew what he was!


----------



## Theoretical

B.J. said:


> At least MacArthur got "5" things right about Christian Theology.


----------



## Poimen

Philip A said:


> But I'd still have a beer with any baptist who knew what he was!


----------



## bookslover

No Longer A Libertine said:


> ...i suspect the Dispensational in him will work itself out in due time...



Well, John's going to be 68 in June. I think that if the dispensationalism in him were going to work itself out, it would have done so by now. Besides, as he himself has said, he's a dispensationalist in the sense that he believes in distinctions between Israel and the Church, but he's not a dispensationalist in the sense that he adhere's to the whole system of multiple dispensations through history, which he rejects. He calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist".


----------



## Andrew P.C.

"MacArthur calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist"--meaning he rejects any and all "dispensational" soteriological innovations, holding to classic Reformed (i.e., Protestant, not "covenantal") soteriology. MacArthur's "dispensationalism" is eschatological and ecclesiological only. And given the fact that soteriology is central to our whole understanding of Christianity, whereas eschatology and ecclesiology deal primarily with secondary doctrines, it would be my assessment that MacArthur has far less in common with Ryrie than he would have with anyone who believes 1) that God's grace is efficacious for regeneration and sanctification as well as for justification, and 2) that God graciously guarantees the perseverance of all true believers." - Phil Johnson 


http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/macarthur.html


----------



## bookslover

Just finished reading Richard Muller's 1993 article "How Many Points?" In the article, he strongly implies that, to be true to the entire warp and weave of Reformed theology, one _*must*_ adhere to amillennialism, thus further implying that premillennialism and postmillennialism are to be rejected.

Historic premils and postmils would, naturally, disagree.

Is Muller right?


----------



## Philip A

Andrew P.C. said:


> "MacArthur calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist"--meaning he rejects any and all "dispensational" soteriological innovations, holding to classic Reformed (i.e., Protestant, not "covenantal") soteriology.... - Phil Johnson[/url]



Johnson doesn't get to define terms for himself. A soteriology without the means of grace (word and sacrament) and outside of the sphere of the covenant is by definition _not_ classic Reformed soteriology.

A few years ago, someone wrote an article (that Phil Johnson promoted) called "are you sure you like Spurgeon?". The author was trying to make the point that Spurgeon held to the so called "five points", and that Arminians needed to come to terms with Spurgeon's historical identity. So MacArthur et al need to be asked "are you _sure_ you like Calvin?" The same Calvin who said that no man can have God for his Father who didn't have the visible church for his mother. How many "Calvinistic" Baptists have read Calvin's (and every other Reformed theologian's) denouncements of all who oppose infant baptism? Baptists need to come to terms with the historical identity of Calvin and the rest of the Reformers.


----------



## JohnV

bookslover said:


> Just finished reading Richard Muller's 1993 article "How Many Points?" In the article, he strongly implies that, to be true to the entire warp and weave of Reformed theology, one _*must*_ adhere to amillennialism, thus further implying that premillennialism and postmillennialism are to be rejected.
> 
> Historic premils and postmils would, naturally, disagree.
> 
> Is Muller right?



No. This too is unreformed. Though it may be true that Amillennialism is generally the view of the Reformed, it is more strictly the view of the Reformed that it not dictate in any way what is a matter of liberty of conscience. So, though mainly Amil, it would never disparage against the other two. It is not in the equation of what defines Reformed.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Philip A said:


> Johnson doesn't get to define terms for himself. A soteriology without the means of grace...




Do you read MacArthur?


----------



## Herald

> How many "Calvinistic" Baptists have read Calvin's (and every other Reformed theologian's) denouncements of all who oppose infant baptism? Baptists need to come to terms with the historical identity of Calvin and the rest of the Reformers.



As a Baptist, I am well aware of Calvin's harsh tone towards those who oppose paedobaptism. I have no problem with it. I simply reject it. I cling to the truth of the doctrine of sovereign grace because I believe it to be scriptural. The term "Calvinist" only has meaning to me to the extent that it represents a correct soteriology.

As far as "coming to grips" with the rest of the Reformers....why? I'm not claiming to be a Genevaite. I consider myself Reformed in my soteriology. I'm not a "wannabe" Presbyterian.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

tcalbrecht said:


> Good article. I'll take the phrase "amillennial" all orthodox millennial positions.
> 
> As a son of Westminster, I can rest comfortably in the knowledge that postmillennialism is well within the boundaries of Reformed confessional orthodoxy.



Last I checked, all 3 views were present at Westminster.

I can probably dig it up from the old board....and I just saw another post on it recently around here. Are you insinuating that premillennialism is outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy ?


----------



## JohnV

Which of the three millennial views to hold to is not in the WCF; the guarantee of liberty of conscience is. All three are stated as within the Reformed setting. It is impossible to have three different doctrines about the same thing. They are only liberties of conscience, because three different views are allowed. Holding to their own views is not the problem; imposing them on the church or on others is. 

If you're going to hold MacArthur up to whether or not he is Amil, then why not Gentry too? And if these two, then why not Muller also?


----------



## Ivan

BaptistInCrisis said:


> As a Baptist, I am well aware of Calvin's harsh tone towards those who oppose paedobaptism. I have no problem with it. I simply reject it. I cling to the truth of the doctrine of sovereign grace because I believe it to be scriptural. The term "Calvinist" only has meaning to me to the extent that it represents a correct soteriology.
> 
> As far as "coming to grips" with the rest of the Reformers....why? I'm not claiming to be a Genevaite. I consider myself Reformed in my soteriology. I'm not a "wannabe" Presbyterian.


----------



## Kevin

BaptistInCrisis said:


> For what it's worth, I don't consider myself Reformed according to the Geneva definition. I am Reformed-friendly.



You probably drink light beer too!


----------



## tcalbrecht

BlackCalvinist said:


> Last I checked, all 3 views were present at Westminster.
> 
> I can probably dig it up from the old board....and I just saw another post on it recently around here. Are you insinuating that premillennialism is outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy ?



Not necessarily. What I would contend is that there is a tendency, even within Reformed circles, to confuse historic premillennialism with dispensationalism. And thus it is easy for dispensational notions to creep into the thinking of premillenarians.

Writing on the history of the formation of the OPC, Hart and Muether state:



> Other debates accompanied the definition of spiritual succession. One of them had to do with premillennialism. When John Murray and R. B. Kuiper took on the errors of dispensationalism, they were shocked at the ministers who rose to their defense-including McIntire, who refused to distinguish between dispensationalism and premillennialism.
> 
> For his part, McIntire warned that the new church, like the old church, was in danger of being overtaken by an "unpresbyterian machine." That machine was located primarily at Westminster Seminary, whose faculty, including Murray, Kuiper, Ned B. Stonehouse, and Van Til (a Scotsman and three Dutchmen), was out of touch with the American Presbyterian tradition and unable to lead a continuing American Presbyterian church. The charge was pointedly made by Professor Allan A. MacRae. When he resigned from the Westminster faculty, he described his former colleagues as "a small alien group without American Presbyterian background."
> 
> There was a sense in which the fundamentalists were right. After all, premillennialism had been part of the American Presbyterian heritage, and had been represented at Princeton Seminary at least since 1905, when Charles Erdman joined the faculty. Van Til especially struggled to understand how premillennialism could command a following in a self-consciously Reformed church. "This is not the historical attitude of the Reformed churches," he wrote to his friend John DeWaard. "In the Dutch tradition at least those holding the premillennial view were merely geduld [tolerated]."



My sense is that the (narrow) rise of premillennialism within American Presbyterian circles owes more to the fundamentalist controversy of the late 19th/early 20th century than to well-reasoned convictions about premillennialism per se. The fundamentalist Presbyterians aligned themselves with other notable fundamentalist dispensationalists, and their aberrant theology started to rub off.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tcalbrecht said:


> My sense is that the (narrow) rise of premillennialism within American Presbyterian circles owes more to the fundamentalist controversy of the late 19th/early 20th century than to well-reasoned convictions about premillennialism per se. The fundamentalist Presbyterians aligned themselves with other notable fundamentalist dispensationalists, and their aberrant theology started to rub off.



Great point. The founding of Westminster and the OPC is really interesting. The fundamentalist controversy made for some strange bedfellows.


----------



## tcalbrecht

SemperFideles said:


> Great point. The founding of Westminster and the OPC is really interesting. The fundamentalist controversy made for some strange bedfellows.



I would also note that, in my opinion, the original form of the Westminster Standards allows for only a view of the millennium which agrees with the notion of a general resurrection and general judgment.



> *At the last day*, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever. (WCF 32:2)
> 
> *God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world*, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. (WCF 33:1)



The premillenarian is forced to spread the resurrection and judgment over a period of 1000 literal years.

Thus accommodations had to be made to the American Confession to either allow some wiggle room for premils, or, as in the case of the BPC, the Confession was amended to be explicitly premil. I.e.,



> God has appointed a day (which word in Scripture in reference to the last things may represent a period of time including the thousand years following the visible, personal and pre-millennial return of Christ), ...


----------



## Philip A

Andrew P.C. said:


> Do you read MacArthur?



Whenever possible, I avoid it 

But yes, I have read him, and listened to a number of his lectures. Everything I have heard from him on the subject would indicate that he is opposed to the Reformed understanding of the means of grace, historically and confessionally defined. A good indication of that would be that he would oppose the use of the word "sacrament", if I am not mistaken.



BaptistInCrisis said:


> ...The term "Calvinist" only has meaning to me to the extent that it represents a correct soteriology.



That's the point of the article and this discussion, though, that redefining terms that already have an historically objective definition by "what it means to me" is highly problematic. I mean, if that's the case, I could say that "Reformed" to me means that we may only sing "Bananaphone" acapella in worship, and that everything else is verbotten! 



BaptistInCrisis said:


> ...As far as "coming to grips" with the rest of the Reformers....why? I'm not claiming to be a Genevaite. I consider myself Reformed in my soteriology. I'm not a "wannabe" Presbyterian.



I have no quibble with you, then, good brother! The argument is against those who want to redefine terms, and claim to be "Reformed" or "Calvinist" when they in fact are radically opposed to the bulk of Reformed doctrine. Since you don't, we're all good!  In the context of this discussion, there are lots of folks out there saying that MacArthur _is_ Reformed (even though he to my knowledge doesn't make the claim). That's what this is about.


----------



## Philip A

BlackCalvinist said:


> Last I checked, all 3 views were present at Westminster.
> 
> I can probably dig it up from the old board....and I just saw another post on it recently around here. Are you insinuating that premillennialism is outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy ?



I think tcalbrecht is right on the money in response to this. I'd be wary of anyone who advocates a distinctively American strain of Presbyterianism too.

I think that the problem here is that there are two differing ways to categorize eschatological views. Calvin speaks in terms of chiliasm and non-chiliasm, i.e., those who believe in a literal 1,000 year period in the future, and those who see the millennium of Revelation 20 non-literally as the period between the advents of Christ. This taxonomy doesn't fit perfectly with the modern three-view categorization, because some post-mills are chiliasts, and some aren't.

As I read Muller, he is speaking in the older sense of chiliasm vs. non-chiliasm (using the terms millennial and amillennial), and stating that chiliasm is foreign to Reformed theology. This would eliminate _some_ modern post-mills, but from my understanding, most of them are still non-chiliasts. Someone with a little more insight and familiarity with Muller could probably clarify this for us.


----------



## caddy

Oh no! Now you have went too far ! 



Kevin said:


> You probably drink light beer too!


----------



## Chris

me three!


----------



## Magma2

B.J. said:


> At least MacArthur got "5" things right about Christian Theology.



I'm not sure this is correct either. Last I checked, and after getting into a long discussion (debate) with Mac's ghost writer, Phillip Johnson, some years ago, he was of the opinion that God desires the salvation of everyone and not just those for whom Christ died.

Wouldn't that make Mac a 4 pointer since he views the atonement as essentially unlimited? At the very least, his position makes the 5th point incoherent, so perhaps "4" things right might be more accurate.


----------



## Philip A

Magma2 said:


> I'm not sure this is correct either. Last I checked, and after getting into a long discussion (debate) with Mac's ghost writer, Phillip Johnson, some years ago, he was of the opinion that God desires the salvation of everyone and not just those for whom Christ died.
> 
> Wouldn't that make Mac a 4 pointer since he views the atonement as essentially unlimited? At the very least, his position makes the 5th point incoherent, so perhaps "4" things right might be more accurate.



I heard JM affirm "L" at a conference at The Master's College in January of '03. Then again, with his ability to redefine terms, he could be saying that Limited Atonement means what you quote above.


----------



## KMK

Philip A said:


> I mean, if that's the case, I could say that "Reformed" to me means that we may only sing "Bananaphone" acapella in worship, and that everything else is verbotten!



I have heard of that doctrine! Isn't that called Exclusive 'Raffi'-dy?


----------



## Philip A

trevorjohnson said:


> Why don't we bump that old thread that states that baptist churches aren't really churches anyhow, too?



Baptist whats?


----------



## Philip A

Here's more on the issue under discussion, and it's particularly helpful with respect to what the confessional Reformed view of the Millennium is:

What Would Calvin Say?

Then again, what does this guy know about Calvin and Reformed theology?


----------



## Philip A

KMK said:


> I have heard of that doctrine! Isn't that called Exclusive 'Raffi'-dy?



Yes indeed! My cell phone reminds me of this pet doctrine of mine every time it ring, ring, rings!


----------



## KMK

Philip A said:


> Yes indeed! My cell phone reminds me of this pet doctrine of mine every time it ring, ring, rings!



You probably have a lot of time to listen to your cell phone as you make the drive from Ridgecrest to Apple Valley every Lord's Day! Wouldn't it have been easier to just remain a baptist?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Philip A said:


> Here's more on the issue under discussion, and it's particularly helpful with respect to what the confessional Reformed view of the Millennium is:
> 
> What Would Calvin Say?
> 
> Then again, what does this guy know about Calvin and Reformed theology?





> ... since the thousand years there mentioned refer not to the eternal blessedness of the Church, *but only to the various troubles which await the Church militant in this world*.



Sounds like Calvin was a pessimistic postmil. 



> There is still another way in which God reigns; and that is, when he overthrows his enemies, and compels them, with Satan their head, to yield a reluctant subjection to his authority, "till they all be made his footstools" (Hebrews 10:13.) The substance of this prayer is, that God would enlighten the world by the light of his Word, -- would form the hearts of men, by the influences of his Spirit, to obey his justice, and would restore to order, by the gracious exercise of his power, all the disorder that exists in the world. Now, he commences his reign by subduing the desires of our flesh. Again, as the kingdom of God is continually growing and advancing to the end of the world, we must pray every day that it may come: for to whatever extent iniquity abounds in the world, to such an extent the kingdom of God, which brings along with it perfect righteousness, is not yet come. (Calvin's Commentary on Matthew 6:10)


----------



## Poimen

Philip A said:


> Here's more on the issue under discussion, and it's particularly helpful with respect to what the confessional Reformed view of the Millennium is:
> 
> What Would Calvin Say?
> 
> Then again, what does this guy know about Calvin and Reformed theology?



Some guy wrote:



> Those of us who actually read Calvin and historic Calvinist theology and who are confessing ministers and members of Calvinist churches were not a little surprised about this breakthrough in Calvin studies coming from the San Fernando Valley.


----------



## Chris

trevorjohnson said:


> Why don't we bump that old thread that states that baptist churches aren't really churches anyhow, too?




There's too much comraderie here. Let's make wednesday 'condemn each other' day...

( I assure you, I jest...)


----------



## Herald

Philip A wrote: 


> That's the point of the article and this discussion, though, that redefining terms that already have an historically objective definition by "what it means to me" is highly problematic. I mean, if that's the case, I could say that "Reformed" to me means that we may only sing "Bananaphone" acapella in worship, and that everything else is verbotten!



I don't view it as problematic at all. I am not the one adopting the term Calvinist. The term Calvinist has come to define all those who hold to T.U.L.I.P. Maybe we should be called Dordtites? I'm not hung up on terms, but they aren't going away anytime soon. 





> I have no quibble with you, then, good brother! The argument is against those who want to redefine terms, and claim to be "Reformed" or "Calvinist" when they in fact are radically opposed to the bulk of Reformed doctrine. Since you don't, we're all good!  In the context of this discussion, there are lots of folks out there saying that MacArthur _is_ Reformed (even though he to my knowledge doesn't make the claim). That's what this is about.



Who "owns" the right to define what is Reformed and what isn't? I am not trying to be smug, but I haven't seen a church yet that has a copyright on the word "Reformed." I would consider myself (along with many other of my brethren) a Reformed Baptist. Why? Because I embrace a theology that has more in common with the Reformation than semi-Pelagianism or Finneyism. Being a Reformed Baptist does not mean I am a Genevaite. I am not seeking to be. 

MacArthur? He is what he is. One enduring legacy he will leave is that he embraced the doctrine of sovereign grace. He will be hated and loved because of that. If you ask him, I suppose he would tell you he would want to be known as a man who walked in obedience and was faithful to scripture.


----------



## Philip A

KMK said:


> You probably have a lot of time to listen to your cell phone as you make the drive from Ridgecrest to Apple Valley every Lord's Day! Wouldn't it have been easier to just remain a baptist?



Sadly, no; if I had remained a confessional 1689'er, I'd have to make the drive to Palmdale every Lord's Day


----------



## bookslover

tcalbrecht said:


> ...the rise of premillennialism within American Presbyterian circles owes more to the fundamentalist controversy of the late 19th/early 20th century than to well-reasoned convictions about premillennialism per se.



This may be true, in the American historical context. But I think we need to keep hammering away at two ideas: (1) that premillennialism antedates dispensationalism by many centuries (heck, William Twisse, one of the head guys at the Westminster Assembly, was a premil); and, especially, (2) that premillennialism _*is not the same thing as*_ dispensationalism.


----------



## tcalbrecht

bookslover said:


> This may be true, in the American historical context. But I think we need to keep hammering away at two ideas: (1) that premillennialism antedates dispensationalism by many centuries (heck, William Twisse, one of the head guys at the Westminster Assembly, was a premil); and, especially, (2) that premillennialism _*is not the same thing as*_ dispensationalism.



I agree, but I'm afraid that, at least in America, it is virtually impossible to separate the two. 

My experience is that your average Christian, even in Reformed churches, does not know the difference. In fact I would venture to guess that most premils in Reformed churches are "leaky dispensationalists" like MacArthur. They probably believe in the pretrib rapture (a purely dispensational notion based entirely on the church/israel dichotomy). I think they also tend to be pessimistic wrt the future influence of the gospel and the Church in the world. 

Also, my experience has been that most former dispensationalists become either postmils or amils, not historic premils. I think it's less confusing to toss out the chiliast eschatology whole hog.


----------



## KMK

BaptistInCrisis said:


> The term Calvinist has come to define all those who hold to T.U.L.I.P. Maybe we should be called Dordtites?



 



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Who "owns" the right to define what is Reformed and what isn't?



Obviously, it the PB!  (I don't know of many others who even use the terms)


----------



## bookslover

tcalbrecht said:


> I agree, but I'm afraid that, at least in America, it is virtually impossible to separate the two.
> 
> My experience is that your average Christian, even in Reformed churches, does not know the difference. In fact I would venture to guess that most premils in Reformed churches are "leaky dispensationalists" like MacArthur. They probably believe in the pretrib rapture (a purely dispensational notion based entirely on the church/israel dichotomy). I think they also tend to be pessimistic wrt the future influence of the gospel and the Church in the world.
> 
> Also, my experience has been that most former dispensationalists become either postmils or amils, not historic premils. I think it's less confusing to toss out the chiliast eschatology whole hog.



I've been saying for years that some historic premil scholar needs to write a book - or at least a longish article - that lays out the historic premil position, while keeping dispensationalism completely out of it. Your post is a good demonstration of why this needs to be done.


----------



## Chris

In case nobody has seen it yet, this is worth a read: 

Phil Johnson clarifys some things.....


----------



## JM

As a Baptist I don't see the need to use the word "Reformed" in front of "Baptist." Particular is fine with me. 

j


----------



## Herald

JM said:


> As a Baptist I don't see the need to use the word "Reformed" in front of "Baptist." Particular is fine with me.
> 
> j



Jason - to each his own. My church uses neither term. We simply identify ourselves as Baptist. In the US you will find the term "Reformed Baptist" more prevalent than "Particular Baptist." I wouldn't get my undies in a twist over it.


----------



## JM

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Jason - to each his own. My church uses neither term. We simply identify ourselves as Baptist. In the US you will find the term "Reformed Baptist" more prevalent than "Particular Baptist." I wouldn't get my undies in a twist over it.



Agreed. My undies will remained un-twisted.


----------



## Herald

JM said:


> Agreed. My undies will remained un-twisted.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Chris said:


> In case nobody has seen it yet, this is worth a read:
> 
> Phil Johnson clarifys some things.....



Okay. Fine. John's premil, but that isn't really the issue is it, unless Phil and John assume that whatever John says Calvin_ a priori_ must have said. I think that such is not the case is pretty evident from even a cursory read of Calvin on chiliasm. 

Second, the notion that the DPP view of the restoration of the national covenant with Israel is the most consistent relation between the doctrine of divine sovereignty and eschatology is very strange. 

Third, Amillennialists are not those who teach that Jesus offered to establish an earthly kingdom, was rejected and thus made the ingrafting of the gentiles into a sort of redemptive-historical, eschatological plan B as at least some DPPs do. I'm not imputing this idea to John, but citing its prevalence in DPP circles as reason for thinking that DPPism is not the most obvious eschatology for predestinarians.

Fourth, Reformed Amillennialism (see Kim Riddlebarger's two books, Anthony Hoekema's book or Cornel Venema's book -- I've checked the OPAC at TMS, they have these vols in their collection) holds that God promised to redeem his elect from all eternity, he revealed that promise immediately after the fall, and has been fulfilling that promise without fail since and shall continue to do until the consummation. We hold that Jesus sovereignly rules the church and the world by his power and providence and that, at his ascension, he entered into his glorious reign as Messiah. We're not waiting for some glorious earthly millennium for Jesus to come into his own, as it were. He's reigning now. I have heard DPPs say that "If Jesus is reigning now, he's doing a poor job." I haven't heard Amil folk say that. We hold that Christ is executing his decrees now. He's saving his elect now. How is this not thoroughly predestinarian and consistent with the Reformed and biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty? One wonders if John hasn't simply erected a caricature and made a series of deductions from it? It certainly seems that way.

Fifth, I've seen a verbatim transcript of the sermon/lecture. It's a remarkable collection of non-sequiturs, assumptions, and leaps of logic that would make superman blush. 

No one who actually knows anything about Reformed theology thinks of John as "Reformed." He doesn't confess the Reformed faith. He doesn't pastor a Reformed church and he doesn't, so far as I know, claim to be "Reformed" except insofar as he is predestinarian. The problem is that lots of folk, even in Reformed circles, think of him as such and it's not surprising since he speaks frequently at Reformed conferences -- further confusing things. 

The question is whether the claims John made about Calvin, the nature of amillennialism, and divine sovereignty are true?

rsc

ps. there is a brief account of amillennialism here. There is a defense of an amil hermeneutic in the latest number of _Modern Reformation_.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

bookslover said:


> I've been saying for years that some historic premil scholar needs to write a book - or at least a longish article - that lays out the historic premil position, while keeping dispensationalism completely out of it. Your post is a good demonstration of why this needs to be done.






http://www.messiahskingdom.com


----------



## bookslover

R. Scott Clark said:


> No one who actually knows anything about Reformed theology thinks of John as "Reformed." He doesn't confess the Reformed faith. He doesn't pastor a Reformed church and he doesn't, so far as I know, claim to be "Reformed" except insofar as he is predestinarian.



John's ordination is through the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA, aka "I Fight Christians Anywhere"). Interestingly though, his church is not an IFCA church; it's completely independent. He's IFCA, but the church is not.

What's frustrating for me about MacArthur is that, being a very intelligent man, it's too bad he didn't come from a Reformed background. If he had, can you imagine what a thoroughly wonderful Reformed witness he would be? Sometimes I think he would _like_ to be Reformed (beyond his soteriology), but his "independent fundy" background (inherited from his late father, Jack MacArthur) is what's holding him back. Early life influences, and all that...


----------



## Me Died Blue

bookslover said:


> John's ordination is through the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA, aka "I Fight Christians Anywhere"). Interestingly though, his church is not an IFCA church; it's completely independent. He's IFCA, but the church is not.



That sounds a lot like Dr. Sproul's current situation - still being ordained by the PCA (I think), yet having an independent congregation.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

bookslover said:


> John's ordination is through the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA, aka "I Fight Christians Anywhere"). Interestingly though, his church is not an IFCA church; it's completely independent. He's IFCA, but the church is not.
> 
> What's frustrating for me about MacArthur is that, being a very intelligent man, it's too bad he didn't come from a Reformed background. If he had, can you imagine what a thoroughly wonderful Reformed witness he would be? Sometimes I think he would _like_ to be Reformed (beyond his soteriology), but his "independent fundy" background (inherited from his late father, Jack MacArthur) is what's holding him back. Early life influences, and all that...



But you know.... it may be that those early influences are what spur him on to take hardline positions on important issues (i.e.- Lordship salvation and when he gets on Larry King Live, he won't choke when asked the hard questions on the gospel like Joel Osteen did). And the church *needs* that. 

I think there's a reason a lot of the reformed community are only _just_ starting to get noticed in the media (i.e.- Mohler) and outside of our narrow reformed circles. A lot of 'us' have become very _insular_ (or rather, became insular during the late 40's - 70's) and as a result, much of the culture went to hades while we stayed inside our doors, arguing infra vs supra amongst ourselves.

We opened the doors in the 80's to let some fresh air in and saw the world had gone to heck in our absence... with a few notable exceptions (i.e.- Council on Biblical Inerrancy).

I believe there's a certain boldness and zeal much of the reformed in America do not have that is made up for by their non-reformed brethren.  And that's a good thing. Notable exceptions are the Paul Manatas of the world.  

Now if we can get the rest of the reformed world to not be complacent and get out there like him........


----------



## govols

bookslover said:


> Sometimes I think he would _like_ to be Reformed (beyond his soteriology), but his "independent fundy" background (inherited from his late father, Jack MacArthur) is what's holding him back. *Early life influences*, and all that...




How can that be compared to Sproul Jr.?


----------



## BlackCalvinist

PRIME example:

[video=youtube;2BZ-N4pruFo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BZ-N4pruFo[/video]


"It has nothing to do with America, I would say that if I was French!" 

Go John!


----------



## KMK

BlackCalvinist said:


> I believe there's a certain boldness and zeal much of the reformed in America do not have that is made up for by their non-reformed brethren.  And that's a good thing. Notable exceptions are the Paul Manatas of the world.



Could we get Brother Paul on Larry King? That would be fun!


----------



## elnwood

As a Baptist, I'm not really so attached to the term Reformed, and I don't think MacArthur is either. However, it is good and useful for Baptists to call ourselves Calvinists. Just like the term "Arminian," it's generally understood in terms of soteriology only and not in terms of Covenant Theology or view of Baptism. If you take the view that you have to be paedobaptist and non-dispensational in your theology to be a Calvinist, well, you need to stop calling all Baptists and dispensationals "Arminians" and find a better term, because Arminius was covenantal and paedobaptist.

As far as Amillennial eschatology being necessary to being Reformed, it should be noted that the Historicist view of eschatology was the eschatology held by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) and codified in the original Westminster Confession. Should Preterists, Futurists, and Spiritualists not be considered Reformed?


----------



## BlackCalvinist

KMK said:


> Could we get Brother Paul on Larry King? That would be fun!



Paul Manata and Dustin Seiger.


----------



## KMK

elnwood said:


> As far as Amillennial eschatology being necessary to being Reformed, it should be noted that the Historicist view of eschatology was the eschatology held by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) *and codified in the original Westminster Confession. * Should Preterists, Futurists, and Spiritualists not be considered Reformed?



I did not know that!


----------



## johnny_redeemed

elnwood said:


> As far as Amillennial eschatology being necessary to being Reformed, it should be noted that the Historicist view of eschatology was the eschatology held by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) and codified in the original Westminster Confession. Should Preterists, Futurists, and Spiritualists not be considered Reformed?



Could you point us to the sections of the confession that you have in mind that codify the Historicist view point?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, _The Non-Preterist Historicalism of John Calvin and the Westminster Standards_:



> The anti-preteristic historicism of the Belgic Confession (arts. 28 & 29)
> Declares the Calvinistic Belgic Confession in its articles 28 & 29: AWe condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them. Their sacraments are corrupted or falsified or destroyed. And all superstitions and idolatries are in them.... Some trace of the Church is left in the Papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain.... But, on account of its corruptions, we cannot present children to be baptized in it, without incurring pollution. AAs to the true Church, we believe that it should be governed according to the order established by our Lord Jesus Christ.... There should be pastors, overseers, and deacons -- so that true doctrine may have its course; that errors may be corrected and suppressed and the poor and all who are in affliction may be helped in their necessities; and that assemblies may be held in the Name of God, so that great and small may be edified.
> 
> The anti-preteristic Preamble to the Canons of Dordt
> States the Preamble to the Canons of Dordt: AThe good Shepherd, Who loves His flock for which He laid down His life with the greatest perseverance, constantly held back the rage of its persecutors at the right time and frequently bridled it with His outstretched hand in a wonderful way. He also uncovered and destroyed the crooked paths and deceptive counsels of the seducers.....
> 
> By a similar benefit, our faithful Saviour has at this time showed His gracious presence to the Church in the Netherlands which was heavily persecuted for a good few years. This Church was always redeemed by the might hand of God from the tyranny of the Romish Antichrist and the terrible idolatry of the Papacy. In the midst of the dangers of such a long-lasting war, she was frequently protected in wonderful ways. And, by unitedly holding fast to the true doctrine and discipline to the praise of her God, she greatly blossomed. She was expanded unto admirable growth of the Republic and joy of the entire Reformed World.
> 
> The anti-preteristic historicism of the Puritans' Westminster Standards
> It should not be necessary to need to add that, just like John Calvin himself, so too the Calvin-istic Westminster Standards -- the official teaching of all Presbyterian Churches worldwide -- are not preteristic but historicistic. Nowhere do they assume that the predictions of Daniel were fulfilled in Daniel's day, nor that the predictions of John's Revelation anent the Roman beast were primarily fulfilled in the apostolic age. For to Westminster, Antichrist alias the Roman beast is not first-century Pagan Rome -- but the later Romish Papacy!
> 
> Just before the Westminster Assembly, the 1639 Confession of Faith of the Kirk of Scotland equates "Papistry" with "that Roman Antichrist" -- and later again "that Roman Antichrist" with "the Papistical Kirk." Similarly, the 1645 Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God urges prayer: "for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction and from the cruel oppressions and blasphemies of the Turk; [and] for the blessing of God upon the reformed churches" etc.
> 
> The 1647 Westminster Confession 23:4 cites Second Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 13:15-17 against the political pretensions of "the Pope" -- in A.D. 1647. Indeed, chapter 25:6 cites Second Thessalonians 2:3-9 and Revelation 13:6 to show that "the Pope of Rome...is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God."
> 
> Finally, the 1648 Westminster Larger Catechism (QQ. 191 & 195) makes it plain that in the Lord's Prayer we are not to pray preteristically -- thanking God merely for preserving the first-century Hebrew Church against Pagan Rome. To the contrary, we are to pray historicistically -- "that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed (Psalm 68:1-18 & Revelation 12:10-11), the Gospel propagated throughout the world (Second Thessalonians 3:1), the Jews called (Romans 10:1), the fulness of the Gentiles brought in (John 17:9-20 & Romans 11:25-26 & Psalm 67); [&] the church...purged from corruption (Malachi 1:11 & Zephaniah 3:9)" etc. For we are to "pray that God could...over-rule the World and all in it...and restrain Satan" -- till he be "trodden under our feet...for ever!"



Also:



> Additionally, the Reformational confessions have adopted the Historicist interpretation including the Irish Articles (1615), the original Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), the Savoy Declaration (1658), and the London Baptist Confession (1688).


----------



## tcalbrecht

> ... "that Roman Antichrist" ...



So, if Romanism and the papacy fade away in history what does that say about our Reformed forefathers other than they were men captivated by their times?

"All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred."


----------



## Poimen

elnwood said:


> As a Baptist, I'm not really so attached to the term Reformed, and I don't think MacArthur is either. However, it is good and useful for Baptists to call ourselves Calvinists. Just like the term "Arminian," it's generally understood in terms of soteriology only and not in terms of Covenant Theology or view of Baptism. If you take the view that you have to be paedobaptist and non-dispensational in your theology to be a Calvinist, well, you need to stop calling all Baptists and dispensationals "Arminians" and find a better term, because Arminius was covenantal and paedobaptist.



Don:

If one were to say that in order to be a Calvinist one must be paedobaptist, non-dispensational AND a believer in sovereign grace, then this would exclude Arminius and Baptists. (problem solved) Arminius is excluded from the Reformed or Calvinist label precisely because he denied the Reformed standards (the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism) which themselves exclude his soteriology as well as credobaptist and dispensational theologies. So we don't need to include the baptists (of any stripe) under the term 'Reformed' any more or any less than we need to include Arminius under the term 'Reformed'.


----------



## elnwood

Poimen said:


> Don:
> 
> If one were to say that in order to be a Calvinist one must be paedobaptist, non-dispensational AND a believer in sovereign grace, then this would exclude Arminius and Baptists. (problem solved) Arminius is excluded from the Reformed or Calvinist label precisely because he denied the Reformed standards (the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism) which themselves exclude his soteriology as well as credobaptist and dispensational theologies. So we don't need to include the baptists (of any stripe) under the term 'Reformed' any more or any less than we need to include Arminius under the term 'Reformed'.



I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm just saying that if you exclude Baptists from being "Calvinist," you ought to exclude someone like Dave Hunt from being "Arminian."

Being a Calvinist or an Arminian is almost universally understood as relating to soteriology exclusively, and they are useful definitions as such. I see the attempts of many Reformed types in trying to "redeem" the term Calvinism as being somewhat misguided.


----------



## jbergsing

Philip A said:


> But I'd still have a beer with any baptist who knew what he was!


I figure if beer was OK with Luther then I can enjoy one from time to time, as well!


----------



## BlackCalvinist

tcalbrecht said:


> So, if Romanism and the papacy fade away in history what does that say about our Reformed forefathers other than they were men captivated by their times?
> 
> "All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred."




Which is why I'm premillennial.


----------



## Theoretical

elnwood said:


> I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm just saying that if you exclude Baptists from being "Calvinist," you ought to exclude someone like Dave Hunt from being "Arminian."
> 
> Being a Calvinist or an Arminian is almost universally understood as relating to soteriology exclusively, and they are useful definitions as such. I see the attempts of many Reformed types in trying to "redeem" the term Calvinism as being somewhat misguided.


Don, I guess the problem many of us (Paedobaptist Confessionalist Reformed) have with the terms losing meaning is that, just as I just had to do with those descriptions of my own views, is that words that have been definitive and accurate descriptions of one's theological persuasion for centuries are losing all meaning.

Witness the utter lack of meaning found in the word Evangelical, at least in America. The term Calvinist has also been marginalized a lot, even in the strictly soteriological realm - witness the 4-pointers from DTS or others of that ilk, even though many 4-pointers' worldviews is anything but Calvinist in the sense of God's Sovereignty in Election. 

Should not the "owners" of a particular term or shorthand description fight for the original meaning of those words? After all, when we as a society still let and mostly defend Coca-Cola's stringent defense of its old trademark, in spite of how generic a term it has become for a cola, especially in the South, why shouldn't we - arguing a vastly greater cause - fight for the words?

After all, if we lose these, then where shall we go?


----------



## tcalbrecht

BlackCalvinist said:


> Which is why I'm premillennial.



I assume you mean futurist, i.e., you believe in a future, currently-unidentified antichrist. One could be futurist amil or futurist postmil.

Futurism has its own set of (significant) problems.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

tcalbrecht said:


> I assume you mean futurist, i.e., you believe in a future, currently-unidentified antichrist. One could be futurist amil or futurist postmil.
> 
> Futurism has its own set of (significant) problems.



No, I'm premillennial.  (which of course means I'm also futurist).

Aren't you futurist ? (thought you were either amill or postmill)


----------



## tcalbrecht

BlackCalvinist said:


> No, I'm premillennial.  (which of course means I'm also futurist).
> 
> Aren't you futurist ? (thought you were either amill or postmill)




Whether one is futurist/preterist/historicist is independent of whether one is amil/postmil/premil. I happen to be preterist postmil. 

The futurist vs. preterist debate has to do with the timing of the antichrist and the "great tribulation" events of the Olivet Discourse and book of Revelation. These are mostly independent of ones views of the timing and nature of the millennium.

Thus one can be, for example, a futurist amil or preterist premil.


----------



## elnwood

Theoretical said:


> Don, I guess the problem many of us (Paedobaptist Confessionalist Reformed) have with the terms losing meaning is that, just as I just had to do with those descriptions of my own views, is that words that have been definitive and accurate descriptions of one's theological persuasion for centuries are losing all meaning.
> 
> Witness the utter lack of meaning found in the word Evangelical, at least in America. The term Calvinist has also been marginalized a lot, even in the strictly soteriological realm - witness the 4-pointers from DTS or others of that ilk, even though many 4-pointers' worldviews is anything but Calvinist in the sense of God's Sovereignty in Election.
> 
> Should not the "owners" of a particular term or shorthand description fight for the original meaning of those words? After all, when we as a society still let and mostly defend Coca-Cola's stringent defense of its old trademark, in spite of how generic a term it has become for a cola, especially in the South, why shouldn't we - arguing a vastly greater cause - fight for the words?
> 
> After all, if we lose these, then where shall we go?



Hi Scott,

I see your point, but I'm afraid I'm not very sympathetic. Terms can and will change meanings -- note some KJV-only advocates trying to bring back the KJV definitions even though some of the words in the KJV now mean the opposite of what they meant when it was published.

Moreover, I don't think the definition for the term "Calvinist" has ever been "definitive and accurate." (If it has been, please definite the historical usage with at least one citation). There is no "owner" of the term Calvinist. Calvin's writings live on, but Calvin is dead. Nearly all self-proclaimed Calvinists differ with Calvin's theology in some respect whether it is in his Continental Reformed view of the Sabbath, or his historicist approach to eschatology, or his view on civil governments, or his view on the sacraments/ordinances. None here should presume to speak for Calvin.

The term "Calvinism" has been used for generations now as a term regarding soteriology in contrast to the term "Arminianism." It has become reasonably precise (TULIP, in contrast to the 5 points of the Remonstrance) and is a useful term to which there is no really good equivalent.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The issue is not whether JM is Reformed. He doesn't claim to be. The issue is wh(y Reformed folk keep calling him Reformed.

The problem is with us more than it is with him or his congregation or followers.

My theory is that we (NAPARC) are like the ugly girl at the dance. We sit in the dark corner waiting for someone, anyone, to speak to us. If someone will speak to us we latch on to them with sweaty palms and won't let go. If they'll use the same adjectives as we use to describe themselves, we seem more than happy to let them do so. 

Rather than being the girl in the corner we should think of ourselves as a boutique restaurant or shop of some kind. The only real value we have to the rest of the ecclesiastical world is to do well what we do and be fully what we confess. 

If, however, we continue to license every poor imitator with our brand name, the latter will come to have no significance whatever and it will be very confusing to the marketplace. 

"Hey, this coffee doesn't isn't what I expected all! It tastes just like the stuff down the street. I came in here for Reformed coffee. If I wanted generic evangelical coffee I could get that anywhere."

rsc


----------



## JasonGoodwin

Philip A said:


> Johnson doesn't get to define terms for himself. A soteriology without the means of grace (word and sacrament) and outside of the sphere of the covenant is by definition _not_ classic Reformed soteriology.
> 
> A few years ago, someone wrote an article (that Phil Johnson promoted) called "are you sure you like Spurgeon?". The author was trying to make the point that Spurgeon held to the so called "five points", and that Arminians needed to come to terms with Spurgeon's historical identity. So MacArthur et al need to be asked "are you _sure_ you like Calvin?" The same Calvin who said that no man can have God for his Father who didn't have the visible church for his mother. How many "Calvinistic" Baptists have read Calvin's (and every other Reformed theologian's) denouncements of all who oppose infant baptism? Baptists need to come to terms with the historical identity of Calvin and the rest of the Reformers.



Even Ergun Caner stated that Calvin had an intense hatred toward Baptists for their refusal to perform paedobaptism. (Caner himself is a Free Church advocate.)

Having said that, just because Dr. MacArthur may not be considered "Reformed" in the classical sense (and according to the standards set forth in this board) does not in the least bit make him any less of a Christian. Same could be said of AW Tozer and J. Vernon McGee.


----------



## Pilgrim

B.J. said:


> At least MacArthur got "5" things right about Christian Theology.



He has a lot more than 5 things right, but he is not Reformed. I haven't followed him that closely in recent years, but I don't know that he refers to himself as "Reformed" very often anyway, or if he does it's solely in reference to Reformed soteriology.


----------



## Pilgrim

R. Scott Clark said:


> The issue is not whether JM is Reformed. He doesn't claim to be. The issue is wh(y Reformed folk keep calling him Reformed.
> 
> The problem is with us more than it is with him or his congregation or followers.
> 
> My theory is that we (NAPARC) are like the ugly girl at the dance. We sit in the dark corner waiting for someone, anyone, to speak to us. If someone will speak to us we latch on to them with sweaty palms and won't let go. If they'll use the same adjectives as we use to describe themselves, we seem more than happy to let them do so.
> 
> Rather than being the girl in the corner we should think of ourselves as a boutique restaurant or shop of some kind. The only real value we have to the rest of the ecclesiastical world is to do well what we do and be fully what we confess.
> 
> If, however, we continue to license every poor imitator with our brand name, the latter will come to have no significance whatever and it will be very confusing to the marketplace.
> 
> "Hey, this coffee doesn't isn't what I expected all! It tastes just like the stuff down the street. I came in here for Reformed coffee. If I wanted generic evangelical coffee I could get that anywhere."
> 
> rsc



Great post. Sweaty palms


----------

