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)
Catholic heritage of which the Reformed Confession of Faith takes pride in? What do you mean?
Which creeds and confessions prior to the Principal Reformers are you referring to?
How did Calvin, Tyndale, Luther, etc...discount belief in the Trinity and the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ by believing the papacy to be the man of sin in the temple of God?
What do you mean the Apostle of John and the Holy Spirit had the successor of Peter in mind when writing Revelation?
Honestly, please help. I would love to understand what you are saying.
KR's book The Man of Sin may get into this. I don't recall anything in scripture that hints at the fourth beast meaning anything more than Rome, such as "the world system in general" as you said. Perhaps they were speaking of the world system in general, as manifested in Rome, as you said. I can't be sure, but personally, I think that would be going beyond what is written. If anyone has anything on this please post it. Thanks.
David,
I was going to respond, but then realized that you believe that the Pope is an apostolic successor.
I honestly didn't think anyone believed that.
So, ok, if Peter was the chief apostle, how come Paul rebuked him in Antioch?
E
<i>There are some other confessions out there which espouse theological points which are similar to those of the REFORMED Confessions (e.g., the Particular Baptist "1689 London Confession" and the "Savoy Declaration") but none of these can properly be called "Reformed" as they differ from the Reformed confessions on such things as sacraments and ecclesiology.</i>
So, am I to interpret this to say that the 1689 London Confession is not a reformed confession because it is not a reformed confession? Your proof as to why it's not a reformed confession seems to be that it does not say the things the reformed confessions say. Is this not circular? What am I missing here?
It would be good if Kim would make another post though on the proper interpretation of Revelation on the this topic - What is the proper amillenial interpretation of the Book of Revelation in regards to Rome. Was it "the world system in general" or about the Church of Rome lead by the Successor of St. Peter?
To be Reformed is to recognize your Catholic heritage. Both R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton do a great job in this. Refer to Sproul's book/audio/video What is Reformed Theology?(pgs 27-30).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801065593/102-7599513-9112107?ie=UTF8&tag=lanouvellethe-20&amp;amp;linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0801065593
Refer to Michael Horton's chapter (11 - pgs. 246-248) in Roman Catholicism
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802471811/102-7599513-9112107?ie=UTF8&tag=lanouvellethe-20&amp;amp;linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0802471811
or the ACE booklet authored by Dr. Horton entitled
Evangelicals, Catholics and Unity, 2 - Are Evangelicals Catholics (pgs 13-15).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581340699/102-7599513-9112107?ie=UTF8&tag=lanouvellethe-20&amp;amp;linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1581340699
Allow me to quote from the later.
Unfortunately, the impression is sometimes given in Protestant circles that the Christian church started with Billy Graham or with the Reformation, while in fact the Reformation was an attempt to recover the ancient faith from the excesses of human pride and folly that had occurred in the Middle Ages. The Reformers were not trying to start a new church. That is why the Reformation was called the Reformation and not the Revolution. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other Reformers saw themselves not as new apostles or prophets sent to establish a new and higher kingdom, but as ministers of the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" that had existed by God's grace throughout the ages. They identified themselves with this "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church." And we do also.
It was the early Roman Catholic Church that successfully opposed the Gnostics, Arians, Pelagians, and numerous other false movements, and we who count ourselves evangelical Protestants belong to this Catholic Church today, a church founded by Christ on the ministry of the prophets and apostles.
Yes I am "refering to the Catholic Church during Augustine's time,the church during the seven councils and so on." This period is referred to as anti-Nicean, Nicean and Post-Nicean periods of Church history. It's a historical fact as well that Saint Augustine was Roman Catholic priest, bishop and founder of his own religious order. He is the most quoted saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church who is quoted in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Saint Augustine is quoted even more than Saint Thomas Aquinas in the CCC. I hope Prof. Samples recognizes this fact in his lectures. He is a good man and I'm sure that he will do so.
And yes "it's bad biblical interpretation to read into the book of Revelation the newspapers of the time you live in." One might add that Dispensationalism is a theological invention or heresy less than 200 years old.
He has a nice section at the end about Romans 11 and God's promise that someday there will be a massive conversion of the Jews to the Lord. He says that in light of Romans 11, we can guess that political events surrounding the geopolitical nation of Israel will contribute to the fulfillment of Romans 11. (He says it way better than I am, you ought to read the book.)
I do know from old friends over there, that during Gulf War 1 every secular athiest Israeli Jew they knew wanted to get their hands on a bible and see what it said about Babylon/Iraq...I'm not trying to say Iraq is Revelation's Babylon, just pointing out that war gets people reading scripture.
A few nukes blowing up and the Persian Gulf in Crisis, and Syria and Hizbollah letting loose...well, Romans 11 could be here pretty soon if you ask me.
But anyway, read the book, I think you'd getter a better picture of amil doctrine.
I think you've misunderstood what it means to think the Pope is antichrist. It doesn't mean rejecting the entire church for 1500 years as all apostate. It means rejecting the Pope. The Pope is not the church. I think you've misinterpreted what Horton is saying.
E
Sorry about not having the courage or the integrity to reveal myself. At this time I am low on both. I hope not to think I deserve the same as those who are open and also not abuse being anonymous.
I am a little troubled by this,
"It's a historical fact as well that Saint Augustine was Roman Catholic priest, bishop and founder of his own religious order."
It is a fact that Augustine was a bishop (and a priest, but not in the roman sense, one who has the ability to call down Christ onto the eucharist or something like that) in the catholic church of the time(with 5 major churches, not just rome), he probably never understood the term "Roman Catholic", its an oxymoron of a term. If I know right he didn't begin any order like Francis of Assisi. Even those who condemned Gottschalk in 8th century quoted and considered themselves Augustinian, they were not. Anyways enough off-topic from me.
Carolyn,
thanks for the recommendation. I already have it but I haven't read after first time. I didn't understand much the first time. I think I will give it another read with Bible in hand.
I used read the newspaper into the bible and see all kinds of prophecy websites. Now I see that was wrong on many counts. But basically the advice of the Lord (quoted to me by my brothers) is sufficient that I be ready always for His coming (am I? I wish I was) and in that way, its understandable that we see the whole time between His ascension and coming as the last days.
SomeoneElse,
There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Echo
Saint Augustine was an ordained Roman Catholic priest/monk. He was struck by the beauty of preaching of another Roman Catholic bishop - Saint Ambrose of Milano. Both are canonized saints of the Roman Catholic Church. In those days you were either Catholic or a heretic. There wasn't two catholic churches - only one.
Saint Augustine is well known for his teachings on nature & grace, that is why he is known as the Doctor of Grace, but he also did major works on the Trinity, faith and reason rooted in his Neo-Platonism, his rule (for living a monastic life) and on various heresies of his day (Manichaeism, Donatism & Pelagianism) not to mention writings on political/social matters as well, i.e. politics, just war, etc. He is best known for his Confessions (conversion story) and The City of God. Many Protestants are ignorant of his very Roman beliefs in regards to the Primacy of Peter/Papacy, ordained priesthood, the Mass and the Eucharist, etc. His beliefs on these Roman doctrines are well documented. When reading Saint Augustine you are reading a Catholic, a Roman Catholic.
Here is the important thing to note - in so far as the Principal Reformers understanding and use of the thought of Saint Augustine is what makes them Catholic. Let us be thankful for Saint Augustine influence on Protestant thought. Without him they would have fallen farther from the truth.
A great introductory book on Saint Augustine is here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0899421725/102-7599513-9112107?ie=UTF8&tag=lanouvellethe-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0899421725
The claim among some misinformed Protestants that Saint Augustine was not Roman Catholic is similiar to what they say about Saint Patrick. But Saint Patrick was also an ordained Roman Catholic priest. Let us celebrate the life and thought of both of these outstanding men.
When one studies history he ceases to be Protestant - John Henry Cardinal Newman
Without the Successor of Saint Peter - the Pope - the Holy Father, there is no One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Without the Pope there is no Church. In so far as you accept the teachings of Rome you are Catholic, the fullness of what it means to be Christian. In so far as you deny the teachings of Rome you have fallen from the fullness of truth.
David,
I'm really sorry you feel that way. I'd love to do the Reformation all over again. May the Vatican burn to the ground, so we can dance on her ashes, and sing about the fall of Babylon.
Echo.
Read the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 16, verse 18. Christ gives me no reason to worry. Mostly though I shall just pray for you. I would never wish harm on you or your Christian fellowship. I say "fellowship" b/c it's not a church - no apostolic succession my friend.
Both R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton recognize what Roman Catholics got/get right, both from a historical and contemporary standpoint. Is this not the most reasonable position?
I am not saying you or anyone else for that matter has to accept the Roman position in regards to Scripture and Tradition or justification unless you come to believe it is true. What I am saying though is that you must recognize we (Catholics) have it right in regards to the hierarchy of truths - the Trinity and the Incarnation. If you discount the Roman position on these subjects you cannot be Christian. Surely you can recognize these truths.
Have you read any Church history about the first seven ecumenical councils? If not I would highly suggest that you do. A good place to start is with the Early Church Fathers. Many Protestant versions of their writings are available to read. One low cost one is below.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140444750?tag=lanouvellethe-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0140444750&adid=1ZHRH9HM8T87V652B4F3&
The best one book overview of the entire history of the Church at a reasonable cost is below.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/089870992X?tag=lanouvellethe-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=089870992X&adid=06HCF6H4GNR8MZ93RS6B&
Please I beg of you to not allow your anti-Catholicism to so cloud your thinking or understanding of history and theology. Let us be reasonable. To be most reasonable is to be rooted in a desire for truth, beauty and goodness.
Fool4Jesus,
I think Andrew C's argument about what makes the "reformed" confessions "reformed" and not Baptist is their teaching on the sacraments. This is one of the placecs that distinguishes the "reformed" tradition. See Muller's article, he makes this pretty clear.
David,
Your quote from Dr. Sproul or Dr. Horton, I'm not sure who you were quoting, about being catholic is right on. But, their were several things that the Reformers sought to reform. The Mass, The Papacy, Justification, Church-Tradition, etc., were just some of the issues that they sought to reform. Luther wanted to see the R.C.C. change these teachings and institutions, he didn't intend to break away. But, since he realized this was never going to happen he knew he had to leave altogether. But, we still remain catholic by holding to every doctrine taught in the apostles creed, nicene creed and athinasians creed.
Echo,
As much as I tend to agree with most of what you're saying...that last comment on the R.C.C. was out of bounds. I would love to see the R.C.C. embrace the teachings of the reformation. May we pray for this, rather than seeing her burnt to the ground.