Why John MacArthur Is Not "Reformed"
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 at 10:17AM 
John MacArthur's opening lecture at the Shepherd's Conference created two main points of contention. The first has to do with the on-going debate over eschatology (specifically the millennial question). MacArthur--who is an ardent dispensationalist--stated and defended his position. That's OK and no one is surprised or upset about that. But people are upset because MacArthur so badly misrepresented amillennialism, and because he defined "premillennialism" as though it were dispensationalism. Not true. The loud howls of protest to MacArthur's dispensationalism coming from historical premillennarians is proof. We'll talk more about this matter in the coming days.
The second point of contention is MacArthur's questionable attempt to co-opt "Calvinism" from amillenniarians and claim it for the dispensationalists. This is seen in MacArthur's remarkable claim that amillennialism is inherently "Arminian."
As I thought about drafting a response to this claim, it occured to me that it has already been done. In 1993, Richard Muller--who was my Ph.D. dissertation advisor and acknowledged by all as the leading authority on Reformed scholasticism and Calvin (Click here: Amazon.com: The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford Studies in His)--published a short essay entitled, "How Many Points?"
In this essay, Muller demonstrates why people like MacArthur are not Reformed. MacArthur may hold to the "five points", but Muller shows why MacArthur is not "Reformed" nor a "Calvinist" in any meaningful or historical sense of those terms.
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 specific issue Muller tackles is "who is Reformed?" And John MacArthur is not.
__________________________________
How Many Points?
By Richard A. Muller (and published here with his kind permission)
I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a "five-point Calvinist." I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely "ordinances" of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ's Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the "five points" in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in "accepting" Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of "born again" adults who had "a personal relationship with Jesus."
In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister — although at the time I was astonished. After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his 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. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches. He was, in short, an American evangelical.
To read the rest of this essay, Click here: Riddleblog - "How Many Points?"
Kim Riddlebarger
Dr. Scott Clark has weighed in on what he calls the recent "breakthrough in Calvin studies coming from the San Fernando Valley."
Scott addresses the theme of "What Would Calvin Say?" i.e., about premillennialism -- Click here: http://www.oceansideurc.org/ - The Heidelblog (Scott Clark).
The Heidelblog is always worth reading, especially if you want to know what confessional Calvinism is all about. Scott is currently going through the opening questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism.
Reader Comments (207)
dgg....
Interesting, thanks.
It's been a while..back then what troubled us was not doctrine exactly but the lack of emphasis on dependency on God in prayer. When we talk of the great Reformers, well, they made prayer a priority. A huge priority, for hours daily. I doubt very many of us measure up to that. I don't,I wish I did.
I felt this vague feeling all the time (heard it articulated more than once)that my PDI church was trying to "do it right", not that that's bad, but it wasn't about crying out to God in prayer to move and bring His life and His truth and so on. It was about us doing the church thing right.
After everything I've seen in life, I'd rather be in a church with bumbling, ineffective leadership who don't have it all together, who are pressing into God in prayer as a lifestyle, than be where they are dynamic and seem on top of everything, but are not into prayer.
Anyway, it's been a while, we are just happy to be in a praying PCA church with a praying pastor. I wouldn't trade it for anything.
I do believe in Believer's Baptism and am a 5 pointer (but do not call myself a Calvinist, because I cannot share in some non-TULIP doctrines he esposed).
I am not pretrib, but am, well, an unconvinced premill, not believing in a 7 year trib, but still trying to work out the eschatology found in Scripture.
I cannot refer to myself solely as Baptist or even Southern Baptist because of people like Ergun and Emir Caner, Jerry Falwell (I thought he was an independent baptist), Tony Campolo or Frank Page (SBC president). Reformed Baptist fits to me because I share more with Presbyterian/Reformed than arminian Baptists or emergent Baptists. I am sorry if some do not want to consider us part of the Reformed fellowship, but, thankfully, there are many who do- and I rejoice for that fellowship despite the differences (which are fewer than we have with those who reject the Bible to embrace arminianism, romanism or liberalism.)
Sorry if my first post here 'goes tangental' I should really be asleep by now.
P.S.- please someone point me (via email if possible) to a good resource for amill eschatology, something online would help most for the short-term. Maybe a good teacher or site that contrasts views well? Thanks.
An Undeserving Servant of Christ,
Pregador27 (Pete)
Check out the sidebar listings right here at the Riddleblog for books and on-line Reformed/amil resources. Kim suggests some of the very best information available ... and you can always go directly from such information to yet other information, following the electronic links.
But if I were pressed to whittle all such resources down to the top four, I'd go with Hoekema's book on eschatology, Riddlebarger's book on amillennialism, Bock's three views book, and Beale's commentary on Revelation (or, for something shorter, Johnson). Books are best; but if you want good on-line amil information, check out Riddlebarger, Storms (at Enjoying God), Strimple and Hoekema - who all have solid summary articles.
-Turretinfan
How about taking a term from the OPC: call yourself an orthodox Baptist.
Were the Reformers infallible or divinely inspired? The American Presbyterian church revised the WCF in 1785 because they realized there were some mistakes in it. The Reformation tradition continues. Only the Word is inerrant, its interpreters aren't.
Now I know why our church will not subscribe to that term ...
to busy hanging on to some aspects of Rome...
Can anything good come from the San Fernando Valley? So, can we use the acronym WWCS now? :)
Actually that post brings up some very good points that premils would do well to consider.
As for me, I'll be happy when Christ returns and all the bickering and debate ends.
I'm looking forward to;
"...and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
At least that passage we can read literally. I hope.
Do you mean your church is too busy hanging on to aspects of Rome or Reformed is?
i think it was dg hart who recently said a true reformed confessional church hasn't really existed in america since whitefield landed. perhaps that's an exaggeration, but his point is well taken.
zrim
What's the point of posting in this thread if you haven't read it?
Reading it carefully would save you from saying all kinds of silly things.
Reformed is :-) sounding a lot like Rome (but then, the Reformers, the true ones that are being worshipped here...kept some of Rome that could be left behind (no pun intended)
I read all this and I want to say:
Ok, put your hands up and step away from creeds...slowly, slowly...Read the bible...creeds are nice but nothing speaks like the word of God :-)
donald, spoken like a true non-confessionalist! seriously, though, plenty of people from all sorts of perspectives read the bible. so what is "just reading the bible" supposed to effect, unless you believe in a high view in human nature which teaches that man is trustworthy to know what it means? a man alone on a hill with a bible is a horrible image to confessional understanding. but most of american religion in its nature of being "unmediatorial" has no problem with it due to its high view of human nature. low views of human nature, like ours, demand an objective and mediated hermeneutic, a churchly approach. and a mere sentimentality for holy writ does not make up for that.
zrim
I'm in a small non-denom,non confessional church (I would have to drive 75 miles to get to one, and regularly visit one when I can) and someone once told they were glad that we didn't recite any creeds , I told them that wasn't true, all they had to do was look at the songs we regularly sing and see that half of them are creedal/confessional in their content. And the Bible itself has creeds.
To step away from creeds and confessions is to step away from the teaching of the Word. Even the early church continued this tradition, Acts 2:42, "And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."
Creeds and confessions do not take the place of God's Word anymore than a Sunday sermon or a Bible study does.
To those who rigidly define being reformed along paedobaptistic lines I have a few questions. There are many differences in opinion concerning the issue of covenant theology within Presbysterianism. Is there not also some "discussion" to say the least in Presbyterianism concerning the administration of the ordinances for example concerning paedocommunion. Need I say that Church Discipline (as in Baptist circles) is a somewhat mixed bag. My point is the three issues that separate me and my Presbyterian brethren are also issues that at some level are also up for discussion in Presbyterian circles. And I haven't even touched on the dangers, errors and indeed heresies concerning justification by faith.
I respect my Presbyterian brethren deeply I seriously am searching and praying for greater unity, but I fear that such discussions as have been going on concerning Dr. Macarthur are only driving us further apart and it grieves me. Yes we must all draw a line in the sand as to what doctrines constitute Biblical and Reformed Christianity, but surely we must also be charitable, the writer of the paper is that I believe, but many I have read recently are far from it. It is not safe to bind another man's conscience so I would ask that my Presbyterian brethren would give me a little space, my conscience can't go where you want it to go, but on so many things we agree, please do not let such issues as this make things worse. Yes I wouldn't be allowed to join the church in Geneva, question would you? Would all those who have their drama skits at the front of their church be allowed in? Would all those who deny justification by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone be allowed in...Paedobaptist or not I believe the answer is no...they are I believe farther from being Reformed that many RB's. Also if you go around the average Presbyterian and ask them what they think about the Lord's Supper over here at least you're going to get just as Zwingian an answer as you'll get from a Baptist...these things are not so clear in the pew as we might like.
This is way to long already....in summary my plea is don't thing all who say they are 5 pointers are reformed they certainly are not...and I've been saying it for years....as for the rest of us cut us some slack, grant us a bit of charity, give us some rope, call it what you will.....we're trying to be as Reformed as our consicence will allow, surely that deserves some respect.
Tony,
Although it is probably thread jacking, you raise a good point about the Pope being the antichrist. However, in order to believe that he is the antichrist, you first have to believe that there will be a MAN who is the antichrist. Not everyone thinks that the Scriptures actually support it.
No matter how much reformed consensus there seems to be that the Pope is the antichrist, that doesn't mean that's what the Bible teaches. Many careful reformed scholars now believe that there isn't one man of sin, but a spirit of antichrist. Thus while the Pope very well fits what the antichrist is said to be, he is not THE antichrist, even though he very clearly manifests the spirit of antichrist.
Some of us have been so steeped in dispensational theology, that we cannot help but assume that there will be one man who is the Antichrist.
Granted, the reformed pre-date dispensationalism, so that's not their problem, I just think that some of us TODAY have that problem, and then find support in the old reformers. The only problem with that is, if it's not what Scripture teaches, then we should abandon the doctrine.
Many people come into the reformed camp (and I mean that very broadly), but retain many of their old beliefs from their dispensational arminian days. John MacArthur is a good example of this in his view of eschatology. But this doesn't only affect eschatology. It colors your whole view of covenant theology as well.
Thus, many reformed (and I mean that quite narrowly, contra how I used it above) such as those in the URC/OPC/PCA, assume that "reformed" baptists suffer from this same lingering effects of previous theological views. In their minds, "reformed" baptists have not yet fully embraced reformed theology, in that they have not yet let go of their belief in believer only baptism.
What I am slowly coming to accept is that this is not always the case, as much as my own mind seems unwilling to accept it. I find it hard to accept that the belief in believer-only baptism can be gleaned from Scripture apart from coming to Scripture expecting to find it there.
An analogous thing occurs with Pentecostals. They expect the Bible to support their belief in tongues, and lo and behold, to their eyes it does. So people come along and talk about cessation, and they think that it's just a bunch of academic bantering, covering up for unbelief in supernatural things. I have met many like this. To them, the Scripture clearly says not to forbid speaking in tongues. They cannot fathom why we would prohibit it. They don't get it, and in fact are unable to get it, because they see it in Scripture.
So too, I have always assumed, was true of "reformed" baptists. I have always assumed that "reformed" baptists see believer only baptism in Scripture because they expect to find it there, and so many of even our best arguments are simply unintelligible to them. They say that we are arguing from our system, not from Scripture.
I admit that I am still not over that. I'd like to be over it, but there's a problem. I now come to the Scripture with my OPC, Westminster Confession of Faith eyes, and I cannot understand believer only baptism anymore. To me, it simply appears unintelligible, and arguing from a system into the Scriptures, rather than arguing from the Scriptures speaking for themselves. I CANNOT see it any other way. I suppose if I could, then I would adopt their view. The fact is, I don't adopt their view, thus I cannot see that their arguments actually come from Scripture, rather than their presuppositions.
I'd like to get over it, but I can't seem to do it. I think the Scriptures clearly support the reformed system of doctrine as laid out in the WCF and the 3 forms. I cannot see the Scriptures any other way. I'm not sure I want to see the Scriptures any other way. As a matter of fact, I can confidently say that I'm really not interested in seeing them another way, because I have become convinced that the reformers more or less allowed the Scriptures to speak for themselves. But I recognize that they are not infallible, which is why we've changed the confession.
But anyway, perhaps it is the same with seeing the antichrist as one man, or in one office, namely that of the Pope. I'll totally agree that if there is an Antichrist, meaning one man, then the Pope is definitely it (although Mohammed is a good contender). But I don't think that the Scriptures, speaking for themselves, actually support the notion that there is or will be one man who embodies Antichrist. I think there is a spirit of antichrist, which is manifested over and over again.
But what do I know? I'm just a guy who has been taught how to read the Scriptures.
Come to think of it, is there anyone who wasn't taught how to read the Scriptures by someone? Does anyone really let the Scriptures speak for themselves?
The Apostles were taught by Christ, e.g., on the road to Emmaus. Even Paul was taught on the road to Damascus, by figuring out who his Lord was, namely Jesus Christ.
But that's what makes them Apostles I guess. The rest of us, while being informed and inwardly illumined by the Spirit, have to settle for being taught by fallible men how to read the Scriptures. The Spirit doesn't give us all the same amount, so to speak, of illumination, because true Christians believe lots of different things. We can't disagree if our doctrines are from the Spirit speaking in Scripture.
But what do I know?
Echo_ohcE
I agree that the spirit of antichrist is manifest in multiple ways (many cults, etc..) I don't believe, however, that the Antichrist (the man of sin in the temple of God) is one man. In Daniel, the ten kings are ten kingdoms or dynasties; the several beasts which he saw in vision, were not the symbols of particular men, but of nations. When Paul speaks of Antichrist as “the man of sin,” and “the son of perdition,” it is consistent with Scriptural usage to understand him to refer to an order of men, or to an institution (the papacy) as the reformers believed and taught.
The Antichrist is the papacy, the little horn that came up from among the ten horns of the fourth beast (Daniel 7:7-8). The fourth beast is the Roman empire and the little horn is the pope of Rome. The pope and the papacy are synonymous just as the four kings and the four kingdoms are synonymous, as it is written, "Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings...the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom" (Daniel 7:17, 23). Since the fourth beast (the Roman empire) is the fourth kingdom, the little horn that comes out of the Roman empire that is called "the beast" in Revelation is also a kingdom and not one man. Since the Roman empire "and all the beasts that were before it" (Daniel 7:7) do not refer to one man, then the beast in Revelation cannot refer to one man, that is, if we let Scripture interpret Scripture.
That's quite compelling, but what if the fourth beast doesn't only refer to Rome, but the world system in general, using Rome as sort of a good example of what was in mind? What if, rather than specifically Rome, the biblical authors were speaking of the world system in general, as manifested in Rome? I'm not sure if that's the point or not, but I think it might be.
But still, what you say is very compelling.
I'd love to believe that the office of Pope is the office of antichrist. It makes sense. But I'm still not sure.
E