Calvinism ≠ Reformed

msortwell · Dec 12, 2021

I believe it was R. C. Sproul that asserted that "Reformed" is a nick-name for Covenant Theology.

Reformed Theology with John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Spurgeon & Puritans

How can such a group exist? How can someone interested enough in theology to create such a group included Dr. MacArthur within it?

I have benefitted often from John MacArthur's teaching. But that teaching should be considered with the understanding that John MacArthur is a dispensationalist. He is NOT reformed. He is a Calvinist but he is NOT reformed. Being reformed necessitates holding to some form of covenant theology.

Fervent · Dec 12, 2021

Calvinism is purely about soteriology, covenant vs dispensationalist is a different issue. Exactly what "reformed" means is difficult to pin down as it's a fairly recent development and hasn't had the boundaries and issues clearly sussed out. A lot of the time it boils down to 5-point calvinism, though.

royal priest · Dec 12, 2021

msortwell said:
Being reformed necessitates holding to some form of covenant theology.

There are other aspects of reformed theology and practice that John teaches. A high view of the ten commandments, the regulative principle of worship, and an expository method of preaching from the Bible to name a few.

msortwell · Dec 12, 2021

Fervent said:
Calvinism is purely about soteriology . . .

Agreed.

covenant vs dispensationalist is a different issue.

Exactly.

what "reformed" means is difficult to pin down as it's a fairly recent development and hasn't had the boundaries and issues clearly sussed out.

While "reformed" theology may have several different camps within it, one group that is not within it, is dispensationalism. Those of the Reformed camp will hold to a form of Covenant Thelology and will hold to eschatology very different from that of Dr. MacArthur.

A lot of the time it boils down to 5-point calvinism, though.

Ironically, I am more concerned with those who seem to be diluting the meaning of reformed. What "it" are you boiling down?

Mark Quayle · Dec 12, 2021

Fervent said:
Calvinism is purely about soteriology, covenant vs dispensationalist is a different issue. Exactly what "reformed" means is difficult to pin down as it's a fairly recent development and hasn't had the boundaries and issues clearly sussed out. A lot of the time it boils down to 5-point calvinism, though.

That's a pretty good way to put it. Thanks.

I think, in the end, both hold to same basics specific to both as opposed to anything that rejects either: Absolute sovereignty and work of God in all fact vs ability of the creature to effect anything in and of himself, and that, perfectly and obviously shown in his work of grace in the Gospel.

Fervent · Dec 12, 2021

msortwell said:
While "reformed" theology may have several different camps within it, one group that is not within it, is dispensationalism. Those of the Reformed camp will hold to a form of Covenant Thelology and will hold to eschatology very different from that of Dr. MacArthur.

It depends on who's doing the definition, as there is no authority on who is and isn't "reformed." Largely the distinction seems to be an attempt to replace "fundamentalist" given the pejorative tone that word has come to. The term itself is ambiguous enough to not speak to a specific theological issue and is more of a blanket term that people choose to self-identify as which hasn't fully been elaborated.

msortwell said:
Ironically, I am more concerned with those who seem to be diluting the meaning of reformed. What "it" are you boiling down?

It's been my experience that the dividing line with "Reformed" is often either people whose theology is firmly "fundamentalist" or firmly 5-point Calvinist who have come to be bristled by the negative associations that those labels have developed seeking a new tent to camp in. It's simply not defined enough to truly elaborate theological divides and often the issues that are seen as paramount will vary from person to person making different delineations.

Peter J Barban · Dec 13, 2021

I could be labeled a Fundamentalist, a Calvinist, possibly an Evangelical, but I prefer the term Reformed.

Unfortunately, Reformed churches can slide into the liberal/progressive side quite easily. Mine did. And by calling myself Reformed I can minister more easily there.

msortwell · Dec 16, 2021

John MacArthur

The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of dispensationalism was that the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the church could not fulfill God’s promises to Israel. Therefore, there is still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel, historical Jews. Dispensationalism at that level, if we just take that much of it - and that’s all I want to take of it, that’s where I am on that . . .

This hard distinction between the Church and Israel is, in MacArthur's opinion, essential to Dispensational thought. This distinction fades in Reformed teaching. Redemptive history progresses. The church, in Reformed teaching, existed in the OT in the form of the believing Jews. In the NT, it expands to include not only Hebrews that trust in Jesus (the true Israel) but believing gentiles as well.

Keith Mathison

On the day of Pentecost, the true Israel, Jewish believers in Jesus, was taken by the Holy Spirit and formed into the nucleus of the New Testament church (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit was poured out on the true Israel, and the same men and women who were part of this true Israel were now the true new covenant church. Soon after, Gentiles began to become a part of this small group.

This is an extremely important point to grasp because it explains why there is so much confusion regarding the relationship between the church and Israel. The answer depends on whether we are talking about national Israel or true Israel. The church is distinct from national Israel, just as the true Israel in the Old Testament was distinct from national Israel even while being part of national Israel. The remnant group was part of the whole but could also be distinguished from the whole by its faith.

However, if we are talking about true Israel, there really is no distinction. The true Israel of the Old Testament became the nucleus of the true church on the day of Pentecost. Here the analogy of the olive tree that Paul uses in Romans 11 is instructive. The tree represents the covenant people of God—Israel. Paul compares unbelieving Israel to branches that have been broken off from the olive tree (v. 17a). Believing Gentiles are compared to branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted in to the cultivated olive tree (vv. 17b–19). The important point to notice is that God does not cut the old tree down and plant a new one (replacement theology). Neither does God plant a second new tree alongside the old tree and then graft branches from the old tree into the new tree (traditional dispensationalism). Instead, the same tree exists across the divide between Old and New Testaments. That which remains after the dead branches are removed is the true Israel. Gentile believers are now grafted into this already existing old tree (true Israel/the true church). There is only one good olive tree, and the same olive tree exists across the covenantal divide.

What does this mean for our understanding of the relationship between the church and Israel? It means that when true Israel was baptized by the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, true Israel became the New Testament church. Thus, there is continuity between true Israel and the church. This is why the Reformed confessions can speak of the church as existing from the beginning of the world (for example, Belgic Confession, Art. 27). Yet there is discontinuity between the church and national Israel as well, just as there was discontinuity between the faithful remnant and apostate Israel in the Old Testament.

Does Dr. MacArthur's soteriology align with that of the Reformers? Yes. But that is only one element in Reformed Theology To say that MacArthur is reformed because of his soteriology is like saying Dr. MacArthur is an armadillo because he has two eyes. He may share a feature of armadillos (having two eyes), but he is no armadillo. He would not be one even if he claimed to be.

Hazelelponi · Dec 16, 2021

On one hand I agree with you. I don't mind taking MacArthur for what is good and ignoring what is decidedly disagreeable and I wouldn't consider him reformed myself.. he's just an SBC type pastor.

My husband won't listen to him at all... Makes DH cringe because MacArthur's not reformed.

I do think it's a matter of differences of opinion though on what constitutes reformed theology. Either that or RC Sproul said that prior to MacArthur becoming dispensationalist. He wasn't always, if what I understand about the man is correct. He used to be reformed.

msortwell · Dec 16, 2021

Hazelelponi said:
. . . or RC Sproul said that prior to MacArthur becoming dispensationalist. He wasn't always, if what I understand about the man is correct. He used to be reformed.

I don't understand your reference to what Dr. Sproul said. Did he make some reference to Dr. MacArthur being reformed? That would surprise me. Dr. MacArthur's education was received from dispensational institutions.

Mark Quayle · Dec 16, 2021

msortwell said:
This hard distinction between the Church and Israel is, in MacArthur's opinion, essential to Dispensational thought. This distinction fades in Reformed teaching. Redemptive history progresses. The church, in Reformed teaching, existed in the OT in the form of the believing Jews.

The distinction "fades"? The Bible, and Reformed theology, so I thought, are clear that there is but one Gospel, and so, I thought, was MacArthur. We are also clear that not all who are of Israel ARE Israel. And so, I thought, was MacArthur. I took him at some point, don't remember when, to mean that the dispensationalist (that I call hyper-dispensationalist) view that (several ways to put this) the OT taught works salvation, with forgiveness via the sacrificial system, which changed to salvation by faith, apparently after Pentecost, or at least, after Christ's death and resurrection.

In other words, in Reformed thinking there is a hard distinction between of Israel, and Israel the Church. I don't see MacArthur having the least problem with that, and I don't see him agreeing that salvation has ever been by anything but grace through faith.

Hazelelponi · Dec 17, 2021

msortwell said:
I don't understand your reference to what Dr. Sproul said. Did he make some reference to Dr. MacArthur being reformed? That would surprise me. Dr. MacArthur's education was received from dispensational institutions.

Ahh... I didn't know MacArthur's education, I was under the impression that at one point he was traditionally reformed and then became dispensationalist...

Maybe I was wrong then.

Mark Quayle · Dec 17, 2021

Hazelelponi said:
Ahh... I didn't know MacArthur's education, I was under the impression that at one point he was traditionally reformed and then became dispensationalist...

Maybe I was wrong then.

Not all who are labeled 'dispensationalist' fit the mold.

msortwell · Dec 17, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
The distinction "fades"? The Bible, and Reformed theology, so I thought, are clear that there is but one Gospel, and so, I thought, was MacArthur. We are also clear that not all who are of Israel ARE Israel. And so, I thought, was MacArthur. I took him at some point, don't remember when, to mean that the dispensationalist (that I call hyper-dispensationalist) view that (several ways to put this) the OT taught works salvation, with forgiveness via the sacrificial system, which changed to salvation by faith, apparently after Pentecost, or at least, after Christ's death and resurrection.

In other words, in Reformed thinking there is a hard distinction between of Israel, and Israel the Church. I don't see MacArthur having the least problem with that, and I don't see him agreeing that salvation has ever been by anything but grace through faith.

Classic dispensationalists have consistently held that both OT and NT salvation was by grace through faith. How one is/was saved, was not a key distinction between Disp and Ref doctrine - although some typical differences could be observed. The key difference resides in WHO will eventually be saved among Abraham’s physical decedents when Christ returns. Per Dr. MacArthur - all of them.

Another, perhaps more significant difference is what the two different camps believe the OBJECT [the object of saving faith] was in the OT. To the reformed, it was understood to be God and the Savior promised in Gen 3. To the Disp, it was understood to be in God and the Mosaic Sacrificial system.

BABerean2 · Dec 17, 2021

msortwell said:
Classic dispensationalists have consistently held that both OT and NT salvation was by grace through faith. How one is/was saved, was not a key distinction between Disp and Ref doctrine - although some typical differences could be observed. The key difference resides in WHO will eventually be saved among Abraham’s physical decedents when Christ returns. Per Dr. MacArthur - all of them.

Another, perhaps more significant difference is what the two different camps believe the OBJECT was in the OT. To the reformed, it was understood to be God and the Savior promised in Gen 3. To the Disp, it was understood to be in God and the Mosaic Sacrificial system.

Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?

(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)

The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?

1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Galatians 3:8)

2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?

3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?

4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?

5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?

6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?

7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?

8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)

9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9)

10. Watch the YouTube video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.

Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:

“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.

Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.

John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…

"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)

What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?

Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?

Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13?

Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?

.

msortwell · Dec 17, 2021

Hi BABerean2. I appreciate your contribution. Still, this was not intended to be a fully orbed defense of Reformed/Covenant theology. Nor did I intend to attack dispensationalism (even though I am confident that they are mistaken). I merely wanted to object to Dr. MacArthur (or other dispensational Calvinists) being labeled as reformed. And I wanted to warn those that hold to Reformed/Covenant Theology not to be lulled into believing that Dr. MacArthur is one of us. He approaches the text from a dispensational perspective. That must be understood, I you want to benefit from his instruction without getting dragged into some of the “replacement” errors you call out above.

Mark Quayle · Dec 18, 2021

msortwell said:
Classic dispensationalists have consistently held that both OT and NT salvation was by grace through faith. How one is/was saved, was not a key distinction between Disp and Ref doctrine - although some typical differences could be observed. The key difference resides in WHO will eventually be saved among Abraham’s physical decedents when Christ returns. Per Dr. MacArthur - all of them.

Another, perhaps more significant difference is what the two different camps believe the OBJECT was in the OT. To the reformed, it was understood to be God and the Savior promised in Gen 3. To the Disp, it was understood to be in God and the Mosaic Sacrificial system.

Thank you. I'll have to chew on that a bit.

BABerean2 · Dec 23, 2021

msortwell said:
Hi BABerean2. I appreciate your contribution. Still, this was not intended to be a fully or orbed defense of Reformed/Covenant theology. Nor did I intend to attack dispensationalism (even though I am confident that they are mistaken). I merely wanted to object to Dr. MacArthur (or other dispensational Calvinists) being labeled as reformed. And I wanted to warn those that hold to Reformed/Covenant Theology not to be lulled into believing that Dr. MacArthur is one of us. He approaches the text from a dispensational perspective. That must be understood, I you want to benefit from his instruction without getting dragged into some of the “replacement” errors you call out above.

Reformed Covenant Theology is about 400 years old, and Dispensational Theology is about 200 years old.
Both man-made doctrines fall apart in Galatians chapters 3, and 4.

Read the book "Abraham's Four Seeds" by John G. Reisinger to see the problem with both doctrines.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.

.

msortwell · Dec 23, 2021

BABerean2 said:
Reformed Covenant Theology is about 400 years old, and Dispensational Theology is about 200 years old.
Both man-made doctrines fall apart in Galatians chapters 3, and 4.

Read the book "Abraham's Four Seeds" by John G. Reisinger to see the problem with both doctrines.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern man-made Bible doctrines fall apart..

Sorry, but your response really doesn't move the conversation forward. You'll have to actually describe the errors to which you refer. Perhaps you could describe the four seeds?

Mark Quayle · Dec 23, 2021

BABerean2 said:
Reformed Covenant Theology is about 400 years old, and Dispensational Theology is about 200 years old.
Both man-made doctrines fall apart in Galatians chapters 3, and 4.

Read the book "Abraham's Four Seeds" by John G. Reisinger to see the problem with both doctrines.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.

.

If either one of them are right, they are at least 2000 years old, and more likely, about 6000 years old. Dispensationalism, as such, though, is mainly 200 years old —in that, you are right.

Calvinism ≠ Reformed

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

debtor to grace

Senior Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Senior Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Newbie

Senior Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency