Calvinism ≠ Reformed

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?

The Westminster Confession of Faith invents a term known as "the moral law", which is not found in the Bible, and claims this "moral law" was given to Adam in the garden before the fall.

Exodus 34:28, and Deuteronomy 5:1-3, prove this claim to be in error.

The proponents of this doctrine have failed to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" as Paul instructed in Galatians 4:24-31.

This invention of "the moral law" is an attempt to hang onto the ten commandments. They even attempt to move the Sabbath day to Sunday, by ignoring Colossians 2:16-17.

The term "the new covenant" is not found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, even though it is found in the Bible.

========================

Westminster Confession of Faith


Chapter XIX

Of the Law of God



I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four command- ments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.

VII. Neither are the fore mentioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.


(emphasis by bold text is mine)


from www.reformed.org/documents


.
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
64
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟184,901.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Westminster Confession of Faith invents a term known as "the moral law", which is not found in the Bible, and claims this "moral law" was given to Adam in the garden before the fall . . .

If it is your desire to discuss this matter, you might consider starting a thread designed to do so. This thread is intended to raise awareness among the Reformed and the Calvinists that "reformed" and "calvinistic" are not synonyms. To be reformed, a person's theology must align with one of the many reformed confessions which will generally (if not ALWAYS) include some form of Covenant Theology.

By definitions, a dispensationalist cannot hold to covenant theology. They are mutually exclusive. This is not to say that there is no overlap betwen them. Dr. MacArthur is certainly a Calvinist, and has repeatedly offered that his theology is dispensational.

I am not defending Reformed/Covenant Theology over Dispensationalism. I am simply offering that they are different. Those who hold to a confessional theology ought to be particularly careful. They may well enjoy, and benefit from Dr. MacArthur's teaching, as they might from the teaching of other proponents of dispensationalism. But they ought to recognize that such teaching come out of a different theological framework and should be understood with that difference in mind.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If it is your desire to discuss this matter, you might consider starting a thread designed to do so. This thread is intended to raise awareness among the Reformed and the Calvinists that "reformed" and "calvinistic" are not synonyms. To be reformed, a person's theology must align with one of the many reformed confessions which will generally (if not ALWAYS) include some form of Covenant Theology.

By definitions, a dispensationalist cannot hold to covenant theology. They are mutually exclusive. This is not to say that there is no overlap betwen them. Dr. MacArthur is certainly a Calvinist, and has repeatedly offered that his theology is dispensational.

I am not defending Reformed/Covenant Theology over Dispensationalism. I am simply offering that they are different. Those who hold to a confessional theology ought to be particularly careful. They may well enjoy, and benefit from Dr. MacArthur's teaching, as they might from the teaching of other proponents of dispensationalism. But they ought to recognize that such teaching come out of a different theological framework and should be understood with that difference in mind.



It has been my experience that proponents of "Calvinism", and "Reformed Covenant Theology", and "Dispensational Theology" often have no idea about the original source of their man-made doctrine.


If you do not want to discuss how these doctrines compare to scripture, or how they originated, then go ahead.

.
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
64
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟184,901.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I have borrowed the following words from an experienced OPC pastor whom I have consistently found to be well informed and helpful.

"Reformed Theology, unless the definition has been stripped back to the Five Points of Dordt, is defined by the specific creedal statements of the churches of the Reformation. These are full and broad statements of the Christian Faith, covering a wide variety of issues to which the Scriptures speak.

There is about 150 years of overwhelming consensus on most major points of church doctrine and practice. This consensus is being rendered most apparent in the multi-volume work: Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation (1523-1552) :: Creeds & Confessions :: Doctrine/Theology :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books - Discount Prices - Free Shipping . The English Calvinistic Baptist tradition (arriving near the end of this period) borrowed heavily from the Reformed consensus, while making major significant changes in both sacramentology and ecclesiology to accommodate their separatist conclusions. However, a good argument can be made that this stream is a "Reformed" tributary, despite its self-conscious repudiation of the Reformed Church-Order, and the Reformed understanding of the sacramental intersection between ecclesiology and soteriology.

Covenant Theology is more of a hermeneutical (interpretive) paradigm than one of classification or organization. It is related to the complex doctrines of Reformed Theology in that, it asks the question "how is the Bible, the source for all our doctrine and resulting practices, properly to be read, in order that correct conclusions may be derived." Beginning the mid-1500s, and growing stronger as Reformed theologians cross-fertilized, a covenant-focus seemed to emerge from the text of Scripture, and to provide the self-governing parameters for reading the arc of Redemptive History, in which all the parts of Scripture were lodged.

The shape of traditional CT was well-formed by the time of the Westminster Assembly, in which "the covenant of grace" has a significant place in salvation, and is related to a "covenant of works" under which men have previously been condemned.

Once again, within the Confessing stream of English Baptists, many points of Covenant-theology are retained. In the LBC1689, a single cross-testamental Covenant of Grace is affirmed, etc. However, the issue of continuity is significantly challenged at the point of sign-correlation (circumcision/baptism), and there are other, specific exegetical differences that arise between the two groups. So, in the end what makes the difference between classic Covenant-Theology and Baptist Covenant-Theology is at basis a hermeneutical divide.

*Where do we start reading Scripture?
*On what basis is covenant continuity/discontinuity discovered?
*How is the Christian existentially related to the text?
The answers to these questions mark out the differences."

Note, even as the quote begins, it characterizes equating "reformed" to the 5 points of Dordt (i.e., the five points of Calvinism) as a "stripping back" of the definition of "reformed." Reformed necessarily includes the five point, but not all who embrace the theology of the 5 points should be understood to within the Reformed/Covenant Theology camp.
 
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,225
4,212
Wyoming
✟123,651.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.

Too many Calvinists nowadays are running around calling themselves "Reformed," but don't agree with the whole package that comes with that label. A Calvinist is one who has dipped his toes in Reformed theology, but is too scared to swim in it. Johnny is a dispy, and Piper holds to NCT, it is more appropriate to call them only Calvinists. I agree with this thread title.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,225
4,212
Wyoming
✟123,651.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.

This is true, and he has been changing his views over the last several decades. Btw, I haven't heard from you in a long time, brother. How are things?
 
Upvote 0

Jesus is YHWH

my Lord and my God !
Site Supporter
Dec 15, 2011
3,496
1,726
✟389,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
You are right about MacArthur. He is a calvinist in the sense of tulip and the 5 solas, the Sovereignty of God, Meticulous Determinism and Double Predestination. His Eschatological reviews are not Reformed of Calvinistic.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,182
5,696
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,401.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
You are right about MacArthur. He is a calvinist in the sense of tulip and the 5 solas, the Sovereignty of God, Meticulous Determinism and Double Predestination. His Eschatological reviews are not Reformed of Calvinistic.
Though most Reformed or Calvinist believers may tend toward one or another Eschatological view, Reformed or Calvinist theology does not teach, as such, any one view over others. It's not really that MacArthur's Eschatological views are not Reformed or Calvinistic, but that Reformed or Calvinist theology does not teach a different Eschatology.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,908.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
There seem to be two reasonable definitions of Reformed, neither of which is limited to the five points.

One is consistency to the Reformed confessions. The other sees the Reformed movement as a community, which can develop over time. I haven’t done a total of membership, but I think at least half of the Reformed community in the US are actually part of mainline denominations. They would use the second definition. Conservative Reformed typically use the first. I don’t think any major Reformed group equates it with the 5 points, although those points are part of the confessions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
64
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟184,901.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The sharp distinction made between Israel and the church is a necessary element in dispensational theology and drives the need for a pre/mid trib rapture, with an earthly millennial kingdom to follow - a combination foreign to reformed doctrine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,182
5,696
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,401.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
The sharp distinction made between Israel and the church is a necessary element in dispensational theology and drives the need for a pre/mid trib rapture, with an earthly millennial kingdom to follow - a combination foreign to reformed doctrine.
I have not seen that as opposing nor promoting any reformed doctrine. As I understand it, the main application of Reformed doctrine to the matter is simply that there has always ever been One Gospel, and that it has always been of Grace. There was never any salvation by works. Pretty much every Reformed reading I have done has little or no reference to last days; they do see an obvious distinction between Israel and church, and obvious typology. To be honest, I don't even see covenant theology as such to disprove dispensational theology, but to render some of the ultra-dispensational claims bogus, and to subjugate dispensational divisions as of less importance than covenental. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't come at Reformed doctrine from a Reformed training as such.
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
64
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟184,901.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I have not seen that as opposing nor promoting any reformed doctrine. As I understand it, the main application of Reformed doctrine to the matter is simply that there has always ever been One Gospel, and that it has always been of Grace. There was never any salvation by works. Pretty much every Reformed reading I have done has little or no reference to last days; they do see an obvious distinction between Israel and church, and obvious typology. To be honest, I don't even see covenant theology as such to disprove dispensational theology, but to render some of the ultra-dispensational claims bogus, and to subjugate dispensational divisions as of less importance than covenental. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't come at Reformed doctrine from a Reformed training as such.

Reformed Theology sees the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants fulfilled in Christ through the establishment of His present/ongoing kingdom. Dispensationalism holds those covenants as unfulfilled until there is a Jewish focused earthly kingdom of Jesus during which a sacrificial system will be reinstituted. This is foreign to Reformed teaching which generally aligns with an amillennial or postmillennial (I.e., ongoing kingdom) view. There is an historical-premillennialism. But it is very different from dispensational-premillennialism and does not rely on that earthy reign for fulfillment of the Davidic or Abrahamic covenants- as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,182
5,696
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,401.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
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.
Do you have something of his saying this? A link, or other reference? Speech, sermon, conference?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,182
5,696
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,401.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
From what I read, he is not saying that all the Jews who ever lived or will live, will be saved. That's what I understood the claim against MacArthur to be saying. From what I read, he is saying the passage including "...and thus all Israel will be saved" is talking about what happens to the living Jews after the great tribulation.

He says, "Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment." I don't understand him to be saying that those will be saved.
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
64
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟184,901.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
From what I read, he is not saying that all the Jews who ever lived or will live, will be saved. That's what I understood the claim against MacArthur to be saying. From what I read, he is saying the passage including "...and thus all Israel will be saved" is talking about what happens to the living Jews after the great tribulation.

He says, "Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment." I don't understand him to be saying that those will be saved.

You understand him the same as I do. He is not like the heretics that teach that present day non-Christian/Messianic Jews are saved. But he is teaching that there will come a day when 100% of earth-walking, pre-White Throne Judgement Jews will be miraculously converted. I don’t believe that is what Romans 11:26 is teach. The means by which “all Israel” will be saved is via the combined harvest of OT and NT saints, including what appears to be a great revival of Messianic Jews as the return of or Lord approaches - as described in Romans 11:1-26.

The problem with Dr. MacArthur’s view is not so much that he teaches that, at some future moment in time, all Jews will be saved. The biggest problem is that he is teaching that there will be redemption available to some AFTER Jesus removes/raptures His church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
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.

ms,

Jacob Arminius was a Dutch Reformed minister until his dying day. He was a Reformed Arminian.

Meet a Reformed Arminian - The Gospel Coalition
Oz
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,908.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
From what I read, he is not saying that all the Jews who ever lived or will live, will be saved. That's what I understood the claim against MacArthur to be saying. From what I read, he is saying the passage including "...and thus all Israel will be saved" is talking about what happens to the living Jews after the great tribulation.

He says, "Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment." I don't understand him to be saying that those will be saved.
Dunn's commentary on Romans notes: "There is now a strong consensus that πᾶς Ἰσραήλ must mean Israel as a whole, as a people whose corporate identity and wholeness would not be lost even if in the event there were some (or indeed many) individual exceptions"

This section is eschatological, i.e. about the future. It doesn't make much sense to apply it to past Jews.

"Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment." This seems like an attempt to accommodate an overly literal reading of "all Israel," even though what it actually says will happen might be right.

I note that this section is part of an exploration of difference in God's plans for Jews and Gentiles. It's not a complete presentation on judgement.
 
Upvote 0