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)
Awesome! Classic! I can't wait to sit under your culinary Genius tomorrow! Why don't you have your own show on the Food-Network? "Bibles, Body-Building and BBQ!"
Seriously, I think you make a valid point. This is something that people who want to use the title "Reformed" have to deal with. How much are they willing to accept and subscribe to? Are they willing to subscribe to the 3 Forms or the Westminster Standards?
(And as much as I respect the works of those who are 100% Reformed, I'm also just as appreciative of Schreiner, Piper, Carson, Moo, etc., etc., etc. I think we would all be well advised to read the pro/con arguments. I'm glad when people like the ones I've mentioned can take a fresh look at controversial issues, do their best to exegete Scripture, and then pursue a biblical and systematic theology of the same.)
Thanks again for your help.
Also, I recognize that the attitudes of some "fundamentalists" have left a bad idea of what reformed baptists are. A professor of mine long ago said that "there are more types of baptists than there are breed of cats". I hope all don't think bad of Reformed Baptists because of the faults of the fundamentalists and others.
Also, there are more important things to get upset about than the use of a word.
"Carolyn this would be one of those places we part company on what we believe. I do fully believe that a person that claims to be a Calvinist must agree with all 5 points."
************
Karen....so do I. I forget that in cyberland people can't tell you are joking. Sorry. Dumb joke. But some folks who are less than 5 points call themselves Reform.I'm not real comfortable with that myself.
We visited a SGM ( PDI back then) church, back when we lived in Pa for a while in the 90's, when we had to leave a church that went bad.......the teaching was great, and the effort to get people to read the best Reform books was even greater. But at the time the senior pastor and the main counseling pastor were not believers in limited atonement, and some of them were 1/2 on something else, I forget what. We ended up in a PCA church and I'm out of touch with SGM.
Maybe they are 5 points by now.We all change, so I guess I should have investigated before I made my crack. But in the 90's they called themselves "Essentially Reformed", so to be fair, they admitted that they were not what most people call Reform.
**************
Echo...would it help to know that even as a member in good standing of a PCA church I was not comfortable calling myself a Presbyterian, because I know what the word Presbyterian truly means? I have no problem theologically calling myself Reform- as an amil, 5 pointer,keep the sabbath, etc, (minus infant baptism). So I do understand how people here can have problems about terminology- even if I can use the word Reform as a Baptist, I can't use the term Presby with integrity.
Maybe it's just years and years of association with Reform Baptists? I don't know. But Reform seems like a looser word than Presbyterian to me.
****
Chase V- thank you.
I would say we agree on somethings: 5pts are a must and (True) Israel and the Church are one and the same. I also go "bonkers" over the dispy view. Never figured out exactly how those left behind are going to be saved since the Cross wasn't sufficient enough!
I totally disagree with JMac on this point but I must say with all do respect I enjoy his preaching at times and his love for the Lord. I know some will not agree with me on this but I have great respect for many who do not totally agree with me. I do consider him a brother.
Just sometimes we get carried away and don't step back and think before we speak.The topic could have been handled so differently/tactfully. We must admit until all is said and done we may all be suprised that we aren't all knowledge when it comes to the matter of Our Lord's return and other things as well.Humility Goes a long way when dealing with the Bible.
I became, what I call reformed a year before my baptist preaching husband, I was being question about my take on predestination and thought since I was being challenged I better study up and through the word and most every RC Sproul book I could get my hands on the Lord confirm that The Doctrines of Grace/5pts of Calvinism and the Reformed Faith just made the whole of the Scripture totally clear and solid where I had been taught a mix of many beliefs and at time taught nothing at all. My husband followed suit but not after a struggle. Now he is a pastor in SBC that holds to these truths and hopes for revival in our Church and denomination. I never had a solid end times perspective but the funny thing was that he has always embrace the amil view.
At the end of the day for both of us the baptism issue is the only sticking point.
He treats the sacraments as I believe the other here do as well.In fact he will slowly lead the church into a monthly communion when he teaches them the need for that practice.
My writing is getting a bit sloppy do to my sleepiness - I appologize
Many may find my short story boring but sometimes it helps knowing who you are communicating with....
K
Bravo, and thanks for posting Dr. Clark's helpful article (and, of course, many thanks to Dr. Clark for writing it!).
Calvin's comments on Acts 1:6-8 not only make clear where the reformer stood, but also break through to reveal the foundational motive of all those who would seek "to bring Christ down" to establish a temporal, limited, and inglorious reign.
I hope that John MacArthur will be retract his statement, and apologize, in light of having misrepresented Calvin's position.
I am sorry to see John put his foot into a net of his own making.
And yet, after so many years in the pulpit, and with extensive teaching and writing, he has nevertheless shown himself sloppy
in his scholarship on this point. Rather regretable, actually.
Tony
If that is the case, even those who are 3 or 4 point calvinist but hold to covenantal theology are reformed?
What about those who were post-mil are they reformed?
What about the Savoy confession as pointed out by Highland.
Andy
Marcelo and Tony,
Thanks for the answer on God's promises and covenant
I am still halfway reading the comments but just a reply to E
Thanks for your kind reply. I dont think you are mean or anything like that. I urge you not to ever give up on the label "reformed", you say you care passionately about what you believe, then just continue to educate those who don't know or agree why what you believe is more faithful to the Bible. Giving up historic labels and choosing another every time others esp. mistakenly take the label for themselves only causes more headache for the future generations(sadly the term 'evangelical' is pretty much lost cause). That is simply not what we want. my question was this what do we call the shared ground between reformed confessions and particular baptist theology?(maybe history can enlighten us here?)
Carolyn,
The word "reformed" has become looser. But it wasn't always so.
Once upon a time, the reformers defined what it meant to believe what they believed by writing confessions that stated what they believed.
We still have and use those documents. They are the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic, Dordt, Heidelberg). These are the documents that the reformed produced to answer the question: "What do you believe?"
Now, along came the London Baptists. Since they clearly recognized that they didn't believe the same thing as the reformed, they wrote a DIFFERENT confession, called the London Baptist Confession of Faith. To be sure, it's pretty darn close to what the reformers wrote, and in fact, it's clear that the London Baptists simply edited the Westminster Confession.
But they still edited it, and changed the name to something else. The reformers said, "This is what we believe." And the Baptists said, "We believe something slightly different."
Those differences were important to them. Those differences were important to the reformed, and they remain important to the reformed.
The people who wrote the London Baptist Confession didn't call it the London REFORMED Baptist confession, but simply the London Baptist Confession.
In other words, once upon a time, what is now referred to as "reformed baptist" was simply "baptist".
Unfortunately, the baptists began to go in lots of different directions. Many of them today are dispensational, arminian, etc.
So the baptists who remain what baptists originally were have now felt compelled to call themselves something other than simply "baptists", and choose to go with the term "reformed baptist".
From a historical perspective, this move really doesn't make sense. But unlike what many reformed are saying, I say, fine, call yourselves reformed baptists, but you'll pardon us if we choose to be called "confessionalists". Now that's not to say that a baptist cannot be confessional, but the ones that are truly confessional (e.g., who hold to the London Baptist Confession), refer to themselves as reformed baptists, even though the people who wrote the confession they adhere to recognized that they were not reformed, and wanted to distinguish themselves from the reformed by writing their own confession.
All of this is fine, but I say therefore, the reformed should change how they refer to themselves, simply to ensure distinction and avoid confusion. Isn't that why some baptists began referring to themselves as "reformed baptists", even though what they actually are is simply "baptist"? I understand why they want to call themselves reformed baptists, what with all the dispy/arminian baptists out there. They cannot be blamed for wanting to be distinct from that. And that's not a pronouncement of judgment so much as it is a recognition of tremendous differences in beliefs.
But we reformed have the same right that "reformed baptists" have. They have the right to begin to refer to themselves differently to distinguish themselves, so do we.
If someone holds to the London Baptist Confession, that's GREAT! I'm very glad of it, and I'll be happy to share the label "Christian" with them. I'll be happy to hang out with them and debate theology over a beer and a cigar in a friendly sort of way. I'll be very glad to have the mansion next to theirs in heaven, and we'll share many good times. But I won't say that we believe exactly the same thing, and I won't say that these differences simply don't matter.
No one says these differences don't matter, at least historically. The reformed thought it mattered, which is why they included it in the confessions. The Baptists thought it mattered, which is why they called themselves baptists. There's nothing strange and unusual going on here.
So I say, call yourself a reformed baptist or whatever you want. But if you are calling yourself reformed, I will call myself something different, because we don't believe the same thing.
And when I say that I am confessional, it doesn't mean that you aren't confessional. In fact, I'm sure you have a confession, if only in your own mind. Everyone does.
But I say "confessional" meaning the reformed confessions. It's our new label.
Far from causing schism and disunity, if the reformed would get together and determine to call themselves "confessional" many of us could stop being mad at the reformed baptists for stealing our label. We wouldn't have to worry about people calling themselves Calvinists just because they hold to TULIP, even though Calvin had a lot more to say than that. None of this would bother us if we would just pick a new label, agree on it, and be done with it.
Then we could stop being mad at each other, and feelings wouldn't be hurt, and people who are not reformed can continue to call themselves reformed, and it won't be confusing anymore.
For me, I don't care one iota about a "word", except for the fact that it has a historical meaning which people are not regarding. But whatever. I'd rather give up the word, in order to be at peace with our brothers, and save many people lots of confusion. We confessionalists are sticklers for history, but we can get over it.
So go ahead, call yourself reformed or whatever you want. Just let me have a unique term for myself then, because we don't believe the same thing. The differences might not matter much to you, but they matter to me. You can at least be sensitive to that if nothing else, right?
Echo_ohcE
God bless and good night all.
Someoneelse,
I see no reason to refer to the "shared ground" as anything other than Christian. Although, perhaps that would be akin to saying that Arminians, for example, cannot be Christians.
Looks like I just saw a reason.
Now I've got to think.
Still thinking...
You know, being a very low level student of linguistics, I think it now makes sense to me that this would happen, simply speaking from a linguistic point of view. As I said above, at the time of the writing of the London Baptist Confession, the term "baptist" was sufficient. It's not anymore, because of the "papist dogs" and their largely successful counter-reformation, which brought all kinds of lousey ideas into Protestantism.
And since the (London) Baptists were actually part of the reformation, it seems right to call that common ground reformed, at least from a linguistic point of view.
I think this reveals a previously acceptable ambiguity in the label "reformed". To be reformed is really just to be part of the reformation. Technically speaking, the label "reformed" isn't much different from the label "Protestant" is it? But "protestant" isn't exactly meaningful anymore, since it's such a wide spectrum. Traditionally, "reformed" meant subscribing to the reformed confessions, with the exception of the London Baptist Confession. They weren't reformed.
But history has denied this word the ability to retain this meaning. Now it means not dispensational, not Arminian, etc.
Hmmm...
I guess it just still makes sense to me to be at peace with the now broader definition of "reformed" and simply refer to ourselves by a different word, even if that different word isn't much more precise: "Confessional". Not much more precise, but not in common use either.
You see, if the OPC and the URC could join, and then adopt the Westminster Standards AND the three forms, then they'd have to come up with a name for all those confessions. Whatever this name would be, we could then call ourselves after that. Then we'd have a stable label.
Just for fun, let's pretend that they named this uber-confession the Chunnel, since it would unite the English/Scottish/Irish tradition with the Continental tradition. Then we could call ourselves the Chunnelists, and everyone would know exactly what we meant, because our label would derive from the label of our confession.
So what I'm searching for is a common OPC/URC/PCA label. Something that refers only to those denominations. I'd love to say Presbyterian, but the PCUSA poses a problem there. Not that we aren't presbyterian, we are, but it's not distinctive. We're going to need to coin a new word, something we haven't done in a long time.
I still say "Confessional", because no one's going to be jumping to call themselves that. Of course, it won't be long before the reformed baptists (who hold to the LBC) start calling themselves confessional baptists, to distinguish themselves from MacArthur types who simply hold to the 5 points.
But you're right, there should be a term for that common ground, and I think reformed has kind of taken over that ground. Linguistically, that makes a lot of sense.
Echo_ohcE
Even at the time of the Second London Confession there were General and Particular Baptists in England (you can guess whose confession the Second London or 1689 was).
Echo, for myself I prefer the historic term 'Particular Baptist'. If you're upset at Baptists using the name 'Reformed' I can at least do my bit this way.
I have to smile...when I got saved in '73 in college, I am not making this up, they gave me a bible and copy of Hal Lindsey's Late Great.
The guy who I married ( thank God) was at WTS and gave me some amil stuff to read, and it made sense instantly. P came the hardest, and even with that I say I am a J. Edwards and Stephen Charnock P, not a Berkhof or Grudem P....it has to do with what we become in regeneration- the former say back to the risen and imperishable Christ, and the latter imply only back to Adam in his original perfection, which was able to apostasize and choose death. But I'm drifting here. Anyway, thanks for the post.
**************
Echo....
I thought your post to me was very good and very well written and I understand how you feel about all this and I can't argue. But like I said, all the various degrees of "Reform" will probably keep the label, so you'd have to change. I like HH's idea of saying Particular Baptist, or yours of saying Confessional Baptist- maybe on this blog that is the way to go.
My Aunt is in a five point Calvinist, pretrib rapture, Baptist church, and to tell you the truth sometimes even I don't like the term Reform Baptist myself because the meaning is getting so blurred from a pro-confessional standard. Historic premil I can live with, but a pretrib rapture and 7 year trib I just can't. So maybe its good all this got talked out because I think I'll say I'm a Confessional Baptist now. ( gives me a chance to get in my amil plug when they say " huh" ?)
Thanks to all the rest for a very interesting and thought provoking thread.
you wrote at one point,
"Z. You are reformed if you hook up with one of the Sovereign Grace Ministries Churches where they are generally at least 3& 1/2 pointers...maybe 4...and Baptist, and Charismatic with "prophecies"."
that an undue focus upon the domain which carries those doctrines of sin and grace (i.e. calvinism versus arminianism, etc.) when we discuss definitions of terms, etc. seems to always be resident, i wonder about something within that discussion.
is it apparent that these descriptions of "3, 3.5, 4, 4.5 ers" are descriptions that the debate proper never even understood? that is to say, way back when the remonstrants and "calvinists" were wrestling with these topics both sides of the table understood their views to be intrinsically, internally coherent and consistent. so that a good arminian would have no time for a view that bandied around with some in-between interpretation. some have said "a 4 point (or less) calvinist's real name is arminian." but that misses the poitn as well, since good arminians see their whole system as internally coherent.
so, if we must always get side tracked by the domain that contains the doctrines of sin and grace (which seems problematic per se), does anyone see that even when you do that you simply make things worse by suggesting that there actually exists something akin to "a whole number between 4 and 5"? do you see that to reformed ears this would be like saying, "you are reformed if you hold to the idea that Christ was at least some measure God and some measure man, maybe 25% God and 75% man"? trinitarian views, compartmentalized, do not make anyone reformed anymore than soteriological ones. but even if you want to define your terms in these ways, anything less than "5 points" is just not good enough, so to speak. even good arminians know that.
zrim
Sorry if I seemed to say that 3.5 or 4 or 4.5 is by definition Reformed.
Somebody asked for a list of all the Reformed groups, and I stuck the 3.5 at the bottom of the list in humor...they did say "Essentially Reformed" in the 90's, not "Reformed."....whatever that means. And I guess by now they are 5 pointers (the Lord uses John Piper to win a lot of folks over and they hooked up with him to some degree.)
I can't say it made a lot of sense to me either, I mean, if you accept election then limited atonement makes perfect sense....but they didn't see it that way about "L" and Jesus dying for the whole world sort of thing.
But I do think people can slowly get their eyes open over a period of years...they face up to election and later are forced to face that L has to be true....then they have to deal with "backsliding" and P....then they start to reexamine the rapture junk....you don't necessarily go from Arminian to 5 points in one day. I didn't.
i guess having so dimly lit a mind i have been easier to unravel all the layers which built up around me due to american religion (i.e. rapture stuff and oh! so much more, that the reformed world beckoned me like a siren song). long story short, i had nothing holding me back from jumping in with both feet! c'mon, carolyn, just like delmar said in "oh Brother!" "come on in, boys, the water if fine!"
zrim
No. They are not reformed. I believe I also mentioned the 5 Solas of the Reformation. In addition, Reformed theology teaches that the papacy (the man of sin in the temple of God) is the Antichrist. I believe this clear teaching along with Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist Confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently, Spurgeon, and Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the papacy as the antichrist, that is substituting for Christ, the new face of the old paganism that is Mystery Babylon in the Bible. They saw it all in the Scriptures, it was quickened to them. They saw the counterfeit Bride, the Whore which would be judged at the end of history, in the description of Revelation 17, as do so many others today…The Reformers saw the system for what it was and they knew that they had to stand clearly against it. If they were right about that then, they are still right about it now. God’s Word does not change.
I respect those (such as Beale and Riddlebarger) that teach covenant theology, but hold a different view of the man of sin in the temple of God, yet I do not believe they are completely reformed in their teaching...