Tolerance for Error in Evangelicalism: Arminianism and Dispensationalism

[TheInquirer]

In the last few years I have become much less tolerant for non-Reformed teaching after seeing first hand how error can cause all kinds of problems in the church from disunity to poisoning the minds of the saints. I have wondered why so many who claim to hold to Calvinism do not regard Arminianism and Dispensationalism in particular as more serious threats to the health of the church and are too tolerant. Arminianism was viewed as serious poison by Reformed theologians in the past and yet today I rarely hear it refuted with such vigor.

Similarly, I think Dispensationalism is too highly tolerated, especially when it is blended with Calvinism as in the case of John MacArthur. After starting my Christian life in a MacArthur influenced church, I can speak firsthand that Dispensationalism damaged my soul and closed off much of the OT to me and diminished my view of Christ and the glories of His church.

What do you think - do you view these popular teachings as serious dangers to the spiritual health of the church or do you view them as less serious errors that shouldn't be attacked for the sake of "unity" and peace?

 

[dnlcnwy]

I think you may be floating a false question. I view both these teachings as serious errors and attack them vigorously, especially when I am talking to a brother who espouses them. That does not prevent me from closing ranks and presenting a united front when talking to an unbeliever while in the company of an Arminian/Dispensationalist, we just keep to things we have in common.

 

[jwithnell]

I have spent much of the past ~72 hours just shy of tears watching the horrors of a truly evil philosophy engulfing Afghanistan and praying for the Christians who likely even now are paying with their lives for their faith. They may be Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, and even dispensationalists, but as long as they affirm the historic creeds, they are my brothers in Christ. Who exactly is "tolerating" dispensationalists? Are we to chastise people over whom we have no authority? Is it happening in a congregation we're shepherding or in our own denomination? That's a different situation with recourse available according to the government of the church.

 

[RamistThomist]

What counts as "toleration?" I see something like "allowing dispensationalists to be elders in a Reformed church" to be "tolerating." Most evangelicals in my area are Dispensationalists. Do I tolerate them? How do we even gauge that?

 

[dnlcnwy]

What counts as "toleration?" I see something like "allowing dispensationalists to be elders in a Reformed church" to be "tolerating." Most evangelicals in my area are Dispensationalists. Do I tolerate them? How do we even gauge that?

No. Allowing dispensationalists to be elders in a Reformed church goes too far by my lights. I would define toleration as allowing them to be members.

 

[Ben Zartman]

There are many MacArthur fanbois at our church, including the pastors, which jars heavily with the Reformed theology that is taught from the pulpit. It strikes me as enormously inconsistent to admire so much someone who's understanding of the Church, Covenants, the OT, and the end times is so far removed from our historic confession.
It breeds confusion, since only the pastors and perhaps three others can divide the good from the bad in MacArthur, and everybody else just gets more and more befuddled.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Given that he is one of the few people nowadays with any backbone, I cannot help but deeply admire John MacArthur.

 

[TheInquirer]

I have spent much of the past ~72 hours just shy of tears watching the horrors of a truly evil philosophy engulfing Afghanistan and praying for the Christians who likely even now are paying with their lives for their faith. They may be Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, and even dispensationalists, but as long as they affirm the historic creeds, they are my brothers in Christ. Who exactly is "tolerating" dispensationalists? Are we to chastise people over whom we have no authority? Is it happening in a congregation we're shepherding or in our own denomination? That's a different situation with recourse available according to the government of the church.

I said "Dispensationalism" and "Arminianism" and tried to be clear it is the teaching I was focusing on (with the exception of one teacher I mentioned). My non-confessional, broad-evangelical and MacArthur church background is obviously different from yours and perhaps much more mixed than yours. And after serving as an elder in one such congregation and seeing the damage of various teachings and the toleration of them, I certainly did have authority and responsibility over it to a degree but not a lot of freedom since the rest of the leadership did not share my convictions (I am currently in another congregation).

I think you may be floating a false question.

You seemed to understand the question well enough because the answer you gave is right along the lines of what I was asking.

What counts as "toleration?" I see something like "allowing dispensationalists to be elders in a Reformed church" to be "tolerating." Most evangelicals in my area are Dispensationalists. Do I tolerate them? How do we even gauge that?

Depends on your church situation but the last church I was in was not confessional at all so there was a broad toleration for divergent teachings from Calvinism for the sake of unity and gospel-centrality. It just didn't seem that there was any concern that these teachings were harmful and it wasn't a big deal that members held to them.

Given that he is one of the few people nowadays with any backbone, I cannot help but deeply admire John MacArthur.

Do you admire Doug Wilson? He has quite a bit of backbone. I admire MacArthur for some things but I have seen and experienced the damage his teaching has caused. For me he's a mixed bag. He's also got quite a backbone in attacking aspects of Reformed theology (covenant theology, non-premillenialism, etc.). It is far more than his end-times views that are different - I wish more would see that.

Obviously my church experience is different from many of yours. I was asking what your experience has been like and if in your circles, Dispensationalism and Arminianism (the teachings, not the people) are viewed as serious errors or not or have we become so comfortable with their vast prevalence that we don't recognize the dangers as theologians of the past have (maybe in your circles you do, that is what I am wondering).

It was an honest and well-meant question about the seriousness of these types of non-Reformed teachings and how it is viewed in your circles. Not sure why a few of you read into my question aspects that I wasn't really saying - especially on a confessionally Reformed forum. If you take your confessions seriously and with conviction, would you not be deeply concerned by these teachings?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

@TheInquirer - Jim, what church circles are you moving in at present? I will try to address the other points in your post later.

 

[TheInquirer]

Daniel, small and young church that broke off from Mars Hill church planting network during the Driscoll fallout. Pastor is the only one in our area that subscribes to the 1689 LBCF that I know of. However, I would not say the teachings of that confession have permeated the church culture deeply since the church is so young and many are from a lot of different backgrounds. From my perspective, we are trying to transition from "church start up" to developing foundations to build from.

There is not a strong Reformed presence in our area. Being relatively close to Moscow, ID, many seem to associate "Reformed" with Doug Wilson or have no idea what Reformed theology is (including the Calvinistic Baptists who say they are Reformed). The two churches I had been a part of for the last 26 years were first MacArthur brand and then a Baptist, "gospel-centered" church heavily influenced by Moore Theological College in Sydney Australia (Conservative Anglican).

 

[VictorBravo]

There is not a strong Reformed presence in our area. Being relatively close to Moscow, ID, many seemed to associate "Reformed" with Doug Wilson. The two churches I had been a part of for the last 26 years were first MacArthur brand and then a gospel-centered church heavily influenced by Moore Theological College in Sydney Australia.

I just noticed you are two hours north of us. You are right, "Reformed" is rare in these parts. We in Lewiston are fully LBCF confessional and have been since it began long before I came here. Sometimes Moscow refugees settle in and then move on for work reasons. We remain pretty small but still plod along.

I'd be happy to chat or visit with you sometime. I get up to Spokane maybe 3 times a year.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

There are a number of things I admire about John MacArthur - his backbone, spiritual discernment, and his Calvinistic Theology. His books 'The Gospel according to Jesus' and 'The Gospel according to the apostles' showed he proclaimed a clear gospel and identified with some important areas of Reformed Theology.

The problem is that he has a Calvinistic Theology without a corresponding Covenant Theology. This means his Calvinistic Theology rests on a weak foundation. I see this confusion with Masters Seminary graduates. They hold to some areas of Reformed Theology but are very confused about other fundamental areas of Reformed Theology. MacArthur and the Masters Seminary graduates potentially could abandon all Reformed doctrines because they don't have a Covenant Theology to build their theology on.

If you want a fine example of a robust Baptist Covenant Theology read 'Living by Revealed Truth' by Tom Nettles. It shows that Spurgeon built his Calvinistic convictions on a robust Covenant Theology.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Do you admire Doug Wilson? He has quite a bit of backbone.

There is an important difference - MacArthur's gospel is sound. Wilson's is not. As I have argued in another post MacArthur's Reformation theology rests on inadequate foundations, but I am thankful for his gospel message.

 

[TheInquirer]

There is an important difference - MacArthur's gospel is sound. Wilson's is not.

Agree. I was pointing out that the admiration of one's backbone must coupled with the truth upon which that backbone sets forth.

 

[TheInquirer]

I just noticed you are two hours north of us. You are right, "Reformed" is rare in these parts. We in Lewiston are fully LBCF confessional and have been since it began long before I came here. Sometimes Moscow refugees settle in and then move on for work reasons. We remain pretty small but still plod along.

I'd be happy to chat or visit with you sometime. I get up to Spokane maybe 3 times a year.

Vic, I checked out your church's website when we were shopping for churches a couple years ago as you (and I think another in your area) were the closest RB confessional churches in our area. I think we chatted over PM as well.

Would love to meet you and talk. Let me know when you are coming into town and have some free time.

 

[Christopher Robin]

I share your grief, "Inquirer." And it surprised me very starkly when a very respected elder in my old Reformed Baptist church (before we moved out of state) cut off a discussion of the different eschatological views with a hostile attitude saying,"I believe whatever John MacArthur says and so does any decent Reformed Christian!" That was just weird.

But it matters a great deal because Dispensationalism strikes at the very heart of the gospel with it's two peoples of God with two separate plans of salvation, it's rebuilt temple (and I can think of nothing more offensive than for Christ to preside over restored animal sacrifices as if His work wasn't good enough) and it's fear of men. To this day, Mrs. Christopher Robin cannot talk of last things or listen to any discussion of them without experiencing the feelings of panic that were always provoked in her childhood when her ministers warned of the impending Russian invasion of Israel and UN troopers going door to door killing Christians who refuse to recant. Really.

"Escape the horrors that the Antichrist will bring," was the emphasis, rather than "Escape the wrath of God's justice." We were taught to fear man rather than God. Today I find it immensely offensive - perhaps more so since I married Mrs. Christopher Robin because of her sense of dread whenever the subject is raised - that the return of our Lord is not anticipated with great joy instead of dread and fear of being "left behind."

I'm also still learning more and more about Covenant Theology and I find real unity and harmony between the Testaments that "wasn't there" before.

While I can admire John MacArthur from a distance for many things, I still cringe and change stations when his broadcast comes on RefNet (Ligonier's internet radio app). And I'm far less "tolerant" of error than I was only a few months ago.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

But it matters a great deal because Dispensationalism strikes at the very heart of the gospel with it's two peoples of God with two separate plans of salvation

I cannot see how John MacArthurs gospel is defective. When I read 'The Gospel according to Jesus' and 'The Gospel according to the Apostles' I was convinced his view of the gospel itself was sound.

I stated in an earlier post that there are serious problems with dispensationalism, but I also argued that MacArthur proclaimed the Biblical gospel. He certainly does NOT preach there are two separate plans of salvation.

 

[Osnah]

In my experience where I live (small rural community) there are so many churches that really don't know sound theology. Dispensationalism and Arminianism runs rampant because nobody in the area really knows what it is. It becomes very hard to teach against this in certain settings. Add to this that we are seeing bad theology entering churches (not Reformed) through music groups like Elevation, Bethel, Hillsong, etc.

If you were a Reformed Church and you had members believing this, it should be corrected. In that setting you have elders and a pastor to defend against the false teaching. But if you talk to those in the community in passing, this is a losing battle to try to correct their error. There really isn't enough time to devote to showing them their error, unless they are willing to sit down with you.

The problem comes down to most people not really knowing how to properly read, study, and interpret the Bible. That is sadly not being taught in most churches (in my area at least) today. With a proper foundation upon which to interpret Scripture, you can show the error of Arminianism and Dispensationalism. However, I am afraid that until that happens, you are fighting a losing battle.

I try to correct those around me when they take the latest headline to interpret Scripture (mark of the beast, secret rapture, etc.). I will make a comment about that being a bad way to interpret the Bible, but I am just brushed off. Therefore, I don't argue long with them. The same goes for discussions of soteriology. It's a losing battle unless someone is willing to learn and spend time on the subject. So I wouldn't say that I tolerate it in a sense that I agree with just 'getting along'. I would love to correct those in error, but experience shows that the majority are not willing to listen.

 

[Santos]

I guess that I may be a bit nit picky or even a little hypocritical with regard to these two topics. While I do completely reject and loathe Arminianism and Dispensationalism, I very much admire John MacArthur and his Gospel stance and backbone like some of my brothers here. I say hypocritical because I will not tolerate an Arminian preacher/teacher for a moment. For this reason I rarely listen to a radio preacher/teacher because I see very little in common between the "Reformed Gospel/Calvinism" and the "Finny/Wesley/Arminian gospel".

That being said, I think the reason for my love for John MacArthur is three fold.

1. His ability to articulate the Gospel and the Doctrines of Grace in such a way that I fall more and more in love with Christ.

2. His courage and backbone in this time of wishy washy, mealy mothed, and woke socialism that is being embraced in much of Evangelicalism, including the Reformed circles, which I believe to be much more dangerous and much less talked about.

3. Though I hold to Covenant Theology, I do not have a concrete position on eschatology. I lean Amill. Let me be clear that I do know that Dispensationalism can not be true.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel, small and young church that broke off from Mars Hill church planting network during the Driscoll fallout. Pastor is the only one in our area that subscribes to the 1689 LBCF that I know of. However, I would not say the teachings of that confession have permeated the church culture deeply since the church is so young and many are from a lot of different backgrounds. From my perspective, we are trying to transition from "church start up" to developing foundations to build from.

There is not a strong Reformed presence in our area. Being relatively close to Moscow, ID, many seem to associate "Reformed" with Doug Wilson or have no idea what Reformed theology is (including the Calvinistic Baptists who say they are Reformed). The two churches I had been a part of for the last 26 years were first MacArthur brand and then a Baptist, "gospel-centered" church heavily influenced by Moore Theological College in Sydney Australia (Conservative Anglican).

That seems like a complex situation. Obviously, if it were somewhere more confessional, there would be serious problems with tolerating MacArthurite influences. In this context, it is a bit more tricky as the people are not coming from a confessional background in the first place.

I am reasonably familiar with Moore College. My current assistant minister trained there, our former associate pastor's father is the former principal, and I have another friend currently training with them. Generally speaking, its influence seems pretty good, though there is a bit too much "Salvation Onlyism" among them for my liking.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

What do you think - do you view these popular teachings as serious dangers to the spiritual health of the church or do you view them as less serious errors that shouldn't be attacked for the sake of "unity" and peace?

The church situation you’re in reflects the current disorder and thus consternation that prevails in the visible church. We were in a similar situation several years ago, a Baptist church with a non-confessional but Calvinistic (and non-dispensational) pastor, and the church made up of many Arminian and dispensational (but many of them so sweet) members. I think those errors are serious dangers to the spiritual health of the church but also think of course that one shouldn’t attack them in one’s church; the ‘unity’ and ‘peace’ of a church may be based on other things than sound doctrine and love, but it’s still not the place of a private member of course to cause disruption. Have you considered making a move to get to a Reformed and seriously confessional church? If you can do so at all, I think that if you’re humble and prayerful, you’d find you can do more good for the church than staying where you have issues related to conscience in worship, teaching, etc.
Edit: I went back and read and see that you WERE in a church situation like that, but no longer. So what I wrote I imagine was your experience also in leaving that church.

 

[TheInquirer]

Thanks for the suggestions. Not looking for a new church or city at this time. There is a lot of work to promote Reformed theology here and I have a high degree of likemindedness with our current pastor.

The purpose of my post was to get a sense of the 'zeitgeist' toward these teachings. My hunch is that in light of more serious issues at hand, there has been a tolerance toward these harmful teachings which is why they have taken such strong root in the church or afforded a level of toleration (however you define that) for the sake of some kind of unity (or speaking venues at various conferences....). As I read older theologians (Turretin, Van Mastricht, Bavinck, etc.) they vigorously oppose Arminianism and have a tone toward it I haven't heard much today. Additionally, I hear little out of the Reformed world about Dispensationalism besides a few books here and there (Poythress, Gentry, etc.). Perhaps many feel there are more important battles to fight or that those battles have already been fought. However, real people at the ground level are being affected negatively.

MacArthur is an interesting case study in my opinion because he does vigorously defend some important doctrines we hold dear. However, I do think a blind eye has been turned toward his errors and I get a sense that there are many afraid or intimidated to speak out against him (especially if you are at all connected to the MacArthur network) besides a few cases like Riddlebarger, Waldron, and probably some here and there I missed.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

MacArthur is an interesting case study in my opinion because he does vigorously defend some important doctrines we hold dear.

In this regard I have wondered how to position Steve Lawson and Paul Washer. Lawson is strong on promoting the doctrines of grace and expository preaching. He says many things that are helpful. Yet it seems to me he is a MacArthur dispensationist. I understand Washer subscribes to the 1689 Baptist Confession. Yet he associates a lot with MacArthur dispensationalists.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

closed off much of the OT to me and diminished my view of Christ and the glories of His church.

A lot of theological frameworks that stress a strong discontinuity between the testaments are guilty. This is very true for my experiences as well even though my former church wasn't classified as dispensational. God has opened up a door of deeper spirituality and richness because of the Old Testament. This didn't occur until I fully adopted Covenant Theology. I don't want to go as far as saying that Dispensationalists are not Christian but I do feel the doctrine as being spiritually stifling.

For example, it tends to force a discontinuity between testaments developing out anti-Sabbatarian views. In some cases it creates a subjectivity to law keeping in general.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

As I read older theologians (Turretin, Van Mastricht, Bavinck, etc.) they vigorously oppose Arminianism and have a tone toward it I haven't heard much today.

One point to consider here is the difference between old school Remonstrant Arminianism and later Methodist style Evangelical Arminianism. The emergence of the latter seemed to lead to a softening of the tone against Arminianism. From what I have read in Francis Turretin, he seemed to regard the Arminians as little more than sly Socinians.

 

[Enzo]

I share your grief, "Inquirer." And it surprised me very starkly when a very respected elder in my old Reformed Baptist church (before we moved out of state) cut off a discussion of the different eschatological views with a hostile attitude saying,"I believe whatever John MacArthur says and so does any decent Reformed Christian!" That was just weird.

But it matters a great deal because Dispensationalism strikes at the very heart of the gospel with it's two peoples of God with two separate plans of salvation, it's rebuilt temple (and I can think of nothing more offensive than for Christ to preside over restored animal sacrifices as if His work wasn't good enough) and it's fear of men. To this day, Mrs. Christopher Robin cannot talk of last things or listen to any discussion of them without experiencing the feelings of panic that were always provoked in her childhood when her ministers warned of the impending Russian invasion of Israel and UN troopers going door to door killing Christians who refuse to recant. Really.

"Escape the horrors that the Antichrist will bring," was the emphasis, rather than "Escape the wrath of God's justice." We were taught to fear man rather than God. Today I find it immensely offensive - perhaps more so since I married Mrs. Christopher Robin because of her sense of dread whenever the subject is raised - that the return of our Lord is not anticipated with great joy instead of dread and fear of being "left behind."

I'm also still learning more and more about Covenant Theology and I find real unity and harmony between the Testaments that "wasn't there" before.

While I can admire John MacArthur from a distance for many things, I still cringe and change stations when his broadcast comes on RefNet (Ligonier's internet radio app). And I'm far less "tolerant" of error than I was only a few months ago.

One of the points which most shock me in dispensationalists is their belief in a rebuilt millennial temple, with literal sacrifices done by literal Levites.
I mean, if that ain't heresy, what else is?

 

[Andrew35]

One of the points which most shock me in dispensationalists is their belief in a rebuilt millennial temple, with literal sacrifices done by literal Levites.
I mean, if that ain't heresy, what else is?

It depends on how they frame it, honestly.

I had a dispensational prof who said any sacrifices performed would simply be memorials to honor the finished work of Christ; i.e., they would have no sacramental or spiritual function.

I mean, I found it sketchy. But the point is, they have workarounds whereby they remain orthodox. Especially in the DTS camp.

Remember, their highest commitment is to what they consider a "strictly literal" hermeneutic -- except where such is obviously impossible or absurd.

I and most here would find this highly artificial. But they don't.

 

[White Robe]

In the last few years I have become much less tolerant for non-Reformed teaching after seeing first hand how error can cause all kinds of problems in the church from disunity to poisoning the minds of the saints. I have wondered why so many who claim to hold to Calvinism do not regard Arminianism and Dispensationalism in particular as more serious threats to the health of the church and are too tolerant. Arminianism was viewed as serious poison by Reformed theologians in the past and yet today I rarely hear it refuted with such vigor.

Similarly, I think Dispensationalism is too highly tolerated, especially when it is blended with Calvinism as in the case of John MacArthur. After starting my Christian life in a MacArthur influenced church, I can speak firsthand that Dispensationalism damaged my soul and closed off much of the OT to me and diminished my view of Christ and the glories of His church.

What do you think - do you view these popular teachings as serious dangers to the spiritual health of the church or do you view them as less serious errors that shouldn't be attacked for the sake of "unity" and peace?

In my journey to Reformed Theology, I was working for a Mega Church, and I did not know at the time what views it was holding. However, in a Bible Study night, the Senior Pastor out of the blue, mentioned that it was the free will of men to choose Christ. I asked for bible references and more questions with no satisfactory answers. It forced me to inquire, research, and pray. Finally, when I found out that I was a Calvinist but I did not know it, I run away from that church, like running from the devil. But I am confused with Reformed people that do not see it to be a big deal. I drive 45 minutes to a Reformed Church when I am surrounded by all kinds of denominations teaching dispensationalism and Arminianism. That's how much I tolerate it! Am I wrong?

 

[Christopher Robin]

I too had become Reformed without knowing it, and when someone said "that sounds like Calvinism" I actually got scared. I had been warned about "those cold-hearted, head-knowledge-only Calvinists" before, and now here I was becoming one?!

Yet I couldn't deny what the Scripture clearly teaches. It wasn't long before we were driving to a different town every Lord's Day just for sound teaching. My poor family... I dragged them from a big, exciting Pentecostal "church" to a tiny, "boring" little Puritan one without a choir, a children's program, a praise band, or a drama ministry, and for a time they resented it. But confronted by the Scriptures over several months time, they came around.

 

[Santos]

One of the points which most shock me in dispensationalists is their belief in a rebuilt millennial temple, with literal sacrifices done by literal Levites.
I mean, if that ain't heresy, what else is?

The inconsistency of this belief with the rest of scripture is what led me out of dispensationalism and into covenant theology.