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)
I meant your links and comments about the sexual abuses in the RCC. Its an ad-homminen argument. It has nothing to do with what they believe theologically! Thats what were talking about here, thats what is relevant to the discussion. RCs can be the most immoral people yet at the same time support and argue for correct doctrine (not that they do). Thats all I meant. My work is done here. If anyone wants to keep coressponding e-mail me.
Out!
I am no expert on the RCC.
But I think comparing the Roman catholic Church today to Augustine is like comparing the liberal Presbyterians today to John Owen. So let's forget the historical figures when denominations depart from their historic roots.
No, I have not read the modern Catholic writers. But if they still subscribe to the doctrines of sinless, ever virgin Mary our co-reedemer, and the intercession of dead saints for us, and that papal decrees and councils presenting extra- biblical or apocyphal teachings are equal in authority to the canon, well, it doesn't seem real complicated to me.
If influential RCC's exist who openly refute such doctrines and still call themselves RCCs, I would be curious to know about it. I thought they all ended up leaving the RCC.
all good points and worthy for consideration, for sure.
however, i wonder if you might be pressing the academia a bit too much here. don't mistake this for a roundabout session for those who have devoted their lives to the academic intracacies between traditions, then turn around and blame us for not being as much. just because most of us have not the extended backdrop you obviously have does not mean we don't have a perspective and are somehow disallowed from speaking it. again, i certainly appreciate a call to greater and greater understanding. i may not know exactly how the complexities of american politics work, but that doesn't disallow me from being able to vote; and just because i do doesn't mean i have no capacity for "humility, respect and fairness" as you have called for.
"People tend to either inerit such views from people they listen to or they read critique books and only read the other side to cherry pick quotes."
well, yes, that first part seems to be human nature/behavior 101. i guess i am not sure why that is a bad thing. that's what people do, they inherit views from others. the idea that we all must come to our conclusions only after we have exhausted every book in the world, etc. seems a bit of a stretch to say nothing of sadly clinical. human beliefs systems and how they are internalized, fortunately, are much more complicated than having coldly distilled a view only after a sanitorial review of all the sides. this is not to suggest that being "unfair or willfully under- or un-informed" is a good thing, of course. but i disagree that in order to eliminate such phenomenon we should embrace a clinical and academic approach altogether.
zrim
Perry,
Apparently you missed it when I said that I don't condemn Aquinas. Sure, Aquinas was confused about justification. Absolutely. But again, I don't condemn him. I think he was confused.
But the Council of Trent proves that the writers do not fall into that category. They knew EXACTLY what the Reformation was teaching, and they deliberately REJECTED it.
That's COMPLETELY different from Aquinas or Augustine who were simply confused. Rome was presented with the true gospel and rejected it, calling it vain, and declaring it to be anathema.
That's VASTLY different from simply being confused or ignorant. That's willful rejection of the truth when presented with it.
And they didn't say that that was a legitimate option, as if they accept our doctrine of justification as perhaps a legitimate interpretation of Scripture. Far from it! They very clearly declared it to be anathema.
Make all the excuses you like, call me unfair and unsophisticated if you like, but at the end of the day, the Roman church is the enemy of the gospel, and God will call them to account for that, and I for one can't wait. I LONG for that day.
Or perhaps you never suffered under a false understanding of the gospel?
The pedophilia of the Roman church is disgusting. But far more disgusting is the statistic that 2 out of 3 bishops or cardinals or whatever in the US at some point covered up allegations of abuse with regard to priests under their charge. This is FAR more damning than the actual abuse.
But there are COUNTLESS stomach-wrenching things that are true of the Romans' abuse of people, not the least of which is their propogation of their false gospel, which causes a TREMENDOUS amount of suffering world wide.
How many true believers are trying desperately to save themselves by their own works to please God thanks to the influence of the lies of the Roman church? They are more numerous than the sand of the seashore, more numerous than the stars in the sky.
They prey upon the people of God. I refuse to compromise on that. They are victimizing people. What you say amounts to making excuses for them, as if their rejection of the true gospel of Christ is not their fault somehow.
Well, my quotations from the Council of Trent PROVE that they are not confused. They weren't confused 500 years ago and they aren't confused now. They knowingly and deliberately, upon being presented with the true gospel, have flatly rejected it, calling it vain and anathema. Don't you understand what this means?
Aquinas has an excuse that the modern Roman church, after the Reformation, does not have. He had not been presented with the truth as far as we can tell. He was genuinely confused. In fact, for a 1000 years at least the church was confused about justification. Perhaps for almost its entire history right up to the Reformation. They thought that there was an Old Law, New Law distinction between OT and NT, and they formulated this in response to the gnostics, which were like ancient dispensationalists, who saw no continuity between the OT and NT. This was very unfortunate, but that's what the church has held for most of its history.
But the Reformation DID happen. Now the church has no excuse. They have seen the true gospel, examined it, and declared it anathema. They had access to it in a way that Augustine and Aquinas didn't, according to God's providence and decree. I don't know why he did not bring justification to the front sooner, but the fact is, he didn't. Those who simply lived in confusion and ignorance will hopefully be excused for their error, and I hold out great hope for that. I look forward to playfully teasing Augustine and Aquinas for their views in heaven.
But the evils of the Roman church since the Reformation cannot be excused. They positively DENY the gospel, making them an enemy of the gospel.
Aquinas, Augustine - they didn't deny the gospel, they just didn't understand it.
Rome DENIED and continues to DENY the gospel, calling it anathema. Thus they are God's enemy.
Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
Act 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
E
I think your analogy is mistaken, since Trent is prety much a clear articulation of Augustine's doctrine of grace and justification, since it is quite clear that Augustine did not belive in say Sola Fide for example.
I am sure that those issues seem simple and clear to you, but I'd argue that is because you haven't spent time with the better Catholic theologians and are evaluating Catholicism based on principles alien to it and to its understanding of Scripture. Consequently this only makes my points more appropriate since you are simply begging the question and demonstrating what I was talking about.
I am not denying anyone the right to speak their mind. I am asking for a bit of humility. You don't speak with the certainty of an oncologist about cancer when you have no medical training. This doesn't mean that you can't have your say, but in such contexts psychological certainty by laymen is usually the mark of ignorance or a character defect or both.
So I am not blaiming anyone. I am *asking* for a little bit of reserve, humility, charity and a recognition that not only are things not as simple as we often would like, but Rome or any of the other theological positions aren't out to take away your experience, so relax. Another underlying point is to encourage the reading of primary sources. You wouldn't think I would have to goad people who pride themselves and seeing for themselves to do that. Go figure.
Consequently, your gloss is something of a caricature. I never claimed one had to read everything. But some firsthand knowledge of the primary sources in question seems necessary for the kind of certainty being thrown around here.
No, I did not miss that you didn’t aim at Aquinas. I argued that your comments end up condemning him by implication. Aquinas may be lots of things, but confused is not one of them. And since Aquinas is a fairly faithful expositor of Augustine, you’d be claiming also that Augustine was confused about justification.
I’d bet that for either men, that you aren’t sufficiently familiar with their teaching to be able to make an informed judgment as to whether they were “confused” on the matter of not to be quite frank.
To be fair, it is quite clear that on some points, Rome and the Reformers spoke past each other and at others they did not. It doesn’t follow that in the later cases that just because Rome rejected something the Reformers said that Rome rejected the gospel per se. The Reformers did not agree on everything. They were hardly monolithic, even on areas of Justification. Moreover, it seems quite wrong to treat them as something they self confessedly were not, namely infallible. It is always strange to me that the people who deny infallibility to others are the ones who act as if they have it themselves. Chill out dude.
In fact, everything the Reformers taught is a theological reconstruction made by men from the matter of Scripture through the lens of specific philosophical presuppositions. There is nothing that the Reformers taught, including the canon of Scripture that is not beyond revision. And this follows from their own principles.
If Rome is the enemy of the Gospel, are all of the Eastern churches the enemy of the Gospel too? Was the entire Church, east and west an enemy of the gospel? The gospel was lost in east and west until the Reformation? Are you sure you aren’t LDS? As for judgment, I dare say you seem far too eager to deal out death and judgment.
As for my personal understanding of the Gospel I am neither Reformed nor Catholic so I have the luxury of thinking that you are both wrong. I am quite familiar with both positions. I have suffered under a false understanding of the gospel, when I was in Calvary Chapel and when I was Reformed. So? That has nothing to do with the truth of the ideas per se.
As for your statistics, I think you are getting unsupported and or misleading information from the secular media. Allegations do not amount to truth. A number of allegations have been proven false. Every person has not only legal rights in a secular court but rights under canon law in the church. A simple allegation from someone is not sufficient under canon law to defrock a clergyman. So I suspect that many of the “2 out of 3” are cases where bishops and various powers examined cases and dismissed them for lack of substance or were shown to be proven false. Perhaps you are not familiar with canon law and the protect it affords from despotic pastors or mobs of laymen. The Reformed churches have a robust tradition of canon law of their own so I suggest you avail yourself of it.
Moreover, you confuse the abuse of some of the members in the Roman church with the Roman Church herself. The two are not the same anymore than the **higher** rate of abuse among Protestant clergy implies that the Protestant church (is there such a thing?) does such things. You confuse the part with the whole.
If you understood Augustine, then you would know that Rome doesn’t teach Pelagianism and in fact Trent condemns it. So the caricature that Rome teaches that works apart from grace merit favor is simply false. So you are in one way or another bearing false witness. If you read Paul, you’d know that the love of God poured into us (Rom 5:5) fufills the law in us. (Rom 8:4, 13:10)
As for your quotations from Trent, I don’t think you could even explain what they mean. What for example does Trent mean by the term “justice?” I am not arguing that Trent is right. I don’t think it is, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.
If the church was confused about justification for a thousand years, then we should be able to find sola fide in Augustine, Cyril, Maximus or some of the Great councils, but it isn’t there. Go read your own Protestant historians like McGrath who is quite clear that sola fide is a later development and can’t be found in the ante and post Nicene Fathers. So your apostasy of sorts has to be from the days of the Apostles to the 16th century, which is not only against what the majority of Reformers taught, but puts you in the company of the Mormons.
The Church has no excuse if the Reformers were commissioned by God. Per Scripture, God commissions his ministers either directly attesting to them by miracle or prophecy (Moses, Jesus, Apostles) or indirectly through someone who was so ordained (Levites, bishops, presbyters, deacons). Calvin was never ordained and none of the Reformers had miracles or prophecy attesting to their message so they weren’t directly commissioned by God. And those that were ordained like Luther renounced their priestly commissioning. So if they cannot hear unless one is sent to them, who sent them? Jesus always makes clear who sent him and Paul and the other Apostles do as well. Who sent your new teachers?
And the claim that Trent had access to the Gospel in a way that Augustine didn’t is silly on its face since Augustine read the same bible for starters. Was Augustine an idiot? Secondly, Trent articulates Augustine’s teaching on grace. Augustine wrote a good amount about grace-how strange that the doctor of grace, the one person that the Reformers mistakenly and anachronistically taught their view should be “confused” as to what justification is. What Rome denies is your tradition’s interpretation of what constitutes the gospel and that human reconstruction made by fallible men is not infallible or beyond question. If as you seem the claim, the entire church can fall away, making Jesus a veritable liar (Matt 16:18ff, Jude 1:3) then it isn’t hard to see how a handful of priests and laymen can’t also be wrong. In fact, it is more likely that they are wrong.
You sir are a Roma-phobe. And you need to back off, sit back and learn a bit more before irresponsibly popping off on such matters before you seriously harm someone.
Geez and I am not even Catholic.
If anyone wants to continue this conversation with a believing Catholic who is actually still breathing and alive today please go to this post on my blog:
http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2007/03/fighting-good-fight.html
I actually understand why I am Catholic and if I can't answer your questions or address your concerns I have several really smart friends who probably can.
Oh by the way, the following is for your information - I bought a new baseball t-shirt today. It's a white t-shirt with bright yellow sleeves.
On the front it says the following on top/bottom of the Vatican flag:
Catholic
EST. 0003
On the back it says:
BENEDICT
16
I was thinking about giving one to E, but that probably wouldn't be a good idea. Use your imagination on what he would do to it. I wouldn't give him the pleasure. He might have to go confession afterwords... Oh sorry.
E. and any others - why don't you come over to my site and let's continue this conversation. I respect your freedom and if you choose to not continue this dialog I will pray to Christ through Our Lady and the saints for you.
"you haven't spent time with the better Catholic theologians"
I asked an honest question and I'd like an honest answer. Is there a single one of them who rejects the teachings about Mary(prays for us, sinless, co redeeemer) and yet stays in the Catholic church in good standing?
David- "I respect your freedom and if you choose to not continue this dialog I will pray to Christ through Our Lady and the saints for you."
Should I even bother to mention that when the veil was ripped in two before the holy of holies, it meant that we can now come freely before the mercy seat ourselves because of the blood of Jesus?
Echo, I feel your burden :) :)
In answer to your quyestion, yes there are lplenty of Catholic theologians who dissent from the Catholic Church's official teaching. They usually advocate various liberal Protestant perspectives.
As for Mary, I don't believe in the Roman view but it is not as easily dismissed as you suggest. It is not like Cahtolics just failed to notice the part about the veil. The participation of Mary in the work of redemption, in fact, all of the saints participation, is derivative from Christ. So it is not opposed to Christ's but rather depends on him. Chriest deifies his saints and so a failure to recognize that deification is a failure to honor God's work. (2 Pet 1:4)
This just illustrates my point. Until you have engaged Catholic theology seriously and not in a dismissive manner you aren't going to score any apologetic points with informed Catholics.
You missed my point. That's probably because you disagreed with my point.
You keep insisting that my argument implies that Aquinas and Augustine are condemned. Since I don't see the validity of your claim, and it's MY point, not yours, I conclude, and rightly so, that you are simply insisting on putting words in my mouth.
Ok. No point in arguing with someone who doesn't listen to what you say.
E
I appreciate your attempts to clarify.
.....but.....
"The participation of Mary in the work of redemption, in fact, all of the saints participation, is derivative from Christ. So it is not opposed to Christ's but rather depends on him. Chriest deifies his saints and so a failure to recognize that deification is a failure to honor God's work. (2 Pet 1:4)
Perry, honestly, the logic that Jesus Christ deifies us and therefore a human can particpate in the divine work of redemption that Protestants ascribe only to God.....
well.....
I am horrified.
But you are right, I probably "aren't going to score any apologetic points with informed Catholics."
Hope you keep hanging around and reading here. The Lord does use us as vessels of His Holy Spirit in many ways....
.....but NEVER to redeem mankind from sin on the cross. I hope you do come to understand the Reform view on this.
Thanks for posting, it truly has been eye opening.
no point in talking to someone who can't draw an implication.
Carolyn,
If you are horrified at the idea of participating in the work of Christ, then you must not take the NT language about being the BODY of Christ very seriously. And you must exclude a fair amount of the Pauline and Petrine corpus when they talk about being conformed to the image of Christ, becoming a partaker of the divine nature (2 pet 1:4), etc.
I do understand the Reformed view. I was Reformed for a number of years. How do you think I found Kim's blog? I participated in CURE when it existed and frequented the CURE Academy for over four years.
I hope you come to understand what a Christian view of the Incarnation as articulated in the Council of Chalcedon commits you too. :P
Not to be a dope here, but how does the doctrine of the two natures of Christ from the Council of Chalcedon- fully man and fully divine- lend support to the idea that Mary was our sinless, ever virgin, co redemptress??
He alone gets the glory and the credit for the work of redemption on the cross. I can assure you as a member of His body and a regenerated partaker of His divine nature, that it had NOTHING to do with me.
Nor Mary.
Anyway, I appreciate your desire to help us understand and appreciate the RCC, but I am afraid I'm still not quite as appreciative as you might like... :)
Carolyn,
Don't let it get to ya. Note that this guy LEFT the reformed camp in favor of the RCC. I shudder to think of it.
E
It seems you did not pay attention to my repeated denials of being Catholic. I am not Catholic now and did not become Catholic after I resigned my membership from a Reformed Church.
This just shows how stuck your thinking is in western theological categories. There are more Christian traditions than Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic.
Babies getting splashed?
Frequent Eucharist?
I think you missed the memo at some point of your research, and obviously have little to no idea about Reformed/Anglican/Presbyterian/even Lutheran theology.