John MacArthur Predicts Reversal of the Reformed Revival

MacArthur is so nimble in his understanding and expression when he observes that the trend is, that if you have a Reformed soteriology you get a pass on everything else. He rightly observes that it is being “co-opted” by many of the new comers with an immature emphasis on culture which he believes belies their claims of Reformed theology and, instead, reflect Arminian thinking in this scheme.

He says they do not have a biblical view of sanctification (MacAthur’s tolerance or partial embracing of Gospel Sanctification/Contemplation weakens his posture here, though) or of the church. He says “they have a rock n’ roll event with a Reformed message” and makes clear it isn’t even church it is an “event”. The more it accomdates culture the more it will pull them away from what portions of Reformed theology they currently express.

Happily (to me and I am sure others) he asks, “who would have thought John Piper would have had Rick Warren at a Desiring God conference?”. And to that I suggest maybe John MacArthur should have been paying more attention to just what Piper has been teaching and the poor thinking that has gone into some of articulations and he wouldn’t be so surprised. But it is of great satisfaction for to hear John drawing such distinct and certain lines on these topics that even our alleged best Fundie/conservative Evangelical leaders have refused to mark.

I was very challenged by this interview. Many of MacArthur’s points are valid. Yet, there is an irony. MacArthur is not Reformed, nor are the people of whom he is speaking. That is what Reformed people have been saying from the beginning of this “Reformation.” You don’t become Reformed simply by slapping a few stripped-down points from Dordt into your theology and praxis.

So, I’m happy, for the most part, about this embrace of soteriological monergism, but we need to be clear about what it is and what it isn’t. It’s not Reformed.

My opinion, which is very similar to Charlie’s, is that the YRR is a lot of people who think that ‘going reformed’ is a cool and aren’t really concerned with absorbing and inculcating Reformed theology or sensibilities…I think it’s very possible that some YRR’s don’t even realize that they’d have to adopt Covenant Theology instead of Dispensationalism. Basically, they think that being reformed is cool because of people like Driscoll, Mahaney, and others, so they follow the crowds along.

I’d be really, really surprised if one quarter of the YRR are still proud to be ‘reformed’ in ten years and can coherently defend what they claim to believe.

On the other hand, I think that the thirst for the puritans and church fathers is good and necessary after wandering around in the the 1900’s with no real understanding of our historical and theological background as Christians.

[Charlie] I was very challenged by this interview. Many of MacArthur’s points are valid. Yet, there is an irony. MacArthur is not Reformed, nor are the people of whom he is speaking. That is what Reformed people have been saying from the beginning of this “Reformation.” You don’t become Reformed simply by slapping a few stripped-down points from Dordt into your theology and praxis.

So, I’m happy, for the most part, about this embrace of soteriological monergism, but we need to be clear about what it is and what it isn’t. It’s not Reformed.

Charlie,

With respect to labels, which I eschew as often as possible unless the person makes this part of their identity themselves or it is appropriately fitting in describing a school or movement of theology, would you include the word Reformed in describing MacArthur with certain qualifiers? I agree he is not Reformed as the body of historical/orthodox Reformed articulation would indicate. But he (MacArthur ) does seem to desire this label in some fashion. If you were solely making the call, would you afford him any formal use with modifiers to identify himself and if so, how?

To the issue itself, I do not believe it is a symptom of Reformed Theology (as some have gone so far to suggest particularly with Calvinism in view), it is too robust and heavy. Rather, that those who should be gate keepers, even on the edges of Reformed orthodoxy, are failing to draw lines which requires identifying true interlopers, hence as MacArthur cites, this timely renaissance of Reformed doctrine (obviously I have stated I am a former Reformed student which I now oppose on some grounds so no, to anyone aware, I am not recanting my views but being objective) is being spoiled by co-opters with far less interest in their Reformed theology and far greater interest in its benefits to their “eventful movement”.

[Charlie] I was very challenged by this interview. Many of MacArthur’s points are valid. Yet, there is an irony. MacArthur is not Reformed, nor are the people of whom he is speaking. That is what Reformed people have been saying from the beginning of this “Reformation.” You don’t become Reformed simply by slapping a few stripped-down points from Dordt into your theology and praxis.

So, I’m happy, for the most part, about this embrace of soteriological monergism, but we need to be clear about what it is and what it isn’t. It’s not Reformed.

I don’t think that restricting “reformed” to hardline, high Calvinism / Presbyterianism is helpful. Of course, all terms have meaning but often times meaning changes and it has today. I think it’s more helpful to define reformed by the five solas, reformed soteriology, & usually confessional in nature. Generally that’s how it’s understood today. Also, it’s important to realize innate in the reformation was the idea of always reforming. There was a realization that the Reformers knew they may not have gotten every thing right. Isn’t reformed theology always reforming?

Side note: how many of us hold to Psalm only, Church-State connection like the Reformers, strict Sabbath keeping like the Puritans/Reformers? Hardly any so I guess none of us area truly reformed.

No, I would not call John MacArthur Reformed, in any qualified way. Obviously, he holds some ideas that Reformed people held. I hold some ideas that Lutheran people hold. I am not Lutheran.

Reformed people are those who are in agreement with the Reformed faith as articulated in the Reformed confessions. This approach has the advantage of being historical as opposed to ideal, empirically verifiable as opposed to subjective, and practical. The Reformed confessions span several languages, nations, and centuries, and yet are in such agreement that it is nit-picking to try to divide them. Some institutions, such as Westminster Seminary California, hold both to the Continental Reformed and to the Presbyterian confessions.

Also, historically, Baptists did not call themselves Reformed. Those Baptists who embraced a Calvinist soteriology called themselves “Particular,” as opposed to “General.” Other doctrinal differences, such as a Zwinglian view of the sacrament and the refusal to baptize infants stemming from a conception of regenerate church membership, certainly take one outside the realm of Reformed theology.

Matthew mentioned confessional subscription. To which Reformed confession could MacArthur or the majority of YRR people subscribe? None. Nor have they attempted do. They have not, for example, amended the WCF in 1 or 2 sections and subscribed to that.

I wouldn’t consider MacArthur reformed at all.

But the grey area would be the Reformed Baptist. Yet I think that my friend Bob over at his seminary’s blog covered this at one time, Charlie: http://blog.rbseminary.org/

Would it be better to add the qualifier?

I don’t care to really dive into the issue concerning if Mac is Reformed or Dispensational. In a sense one of the reasons I love this guy is that he has one foot planted in at least four worlds (Type B/C fundamentalist world, The conservative evangelical world, The dispensational world and The reformed world) - which upsets everyone - but doesn’t bother Mac because he believes he has Scripture on his side. Wow do I love that! Man, I really love that!!!!!!!! Scripture is his guide and his conscience will not budge unless the Scriptures moves Him.

The one thing I like to remind our readership here at SI is that we still have fundamentalists (primarily “Type A fundamentalists”) out there that claim Mac isn’t really militant enough. Let me remind you all that the Pharisees were concerned that Jesus was also not militant enough. Interesting.

Go get em’ Mac!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Notice what Brother Bob just posted on the seminary blog:

http://www.rbseminary.org/home/covenant-theology-a-reformed-and-baptist…

Joel, I would say that historically, Baptists have had there feet planted in four different worlds.

Baptists of the Particular stripe were neither Reformed or up until the turn of the Dispensational as the term is currently defined. This is why I consider the label Reformed Baptist to be an oxymoron.

[Jay C.] SNIP…I think it’s very possible that some YRR’s don’t even realize that they’d have to adopt Covenant Theology instead of Dispensationalism. SNIP

Joel has it right.

MacArthur can surely sound Reformed. I’ve heard him use all the verbiage (“We simply believe the Doctrines of Grace here”). I’ve heard him sack one of his own sermons by getting off topic to defend Limited Atonement for a half-hour, completely erasing from the minds of his listeners what the sermon had originally been about. He can be Militant in his Calvinism.
But despite his Calvinism, he is clearly a Dispensationalist. Give him a few minutes, and he will try to persuade you that you are too — even if you don’t think you are! Listen to him on Eschatology and you will think you’re listening to Tim LaHaye (though a bit less sensationalistic).
When he agrees with the Separatist position, he can sound as Fundamentalist as Bob Jones Jr. or Earnest Pickering. Yet he takes stands on other issues that makes many Fundamentalists deny he is one of theirs.

His most admirable quality is that he wastes no loyalty on anyone but Jesus Christ as He interprets Him from Scripture. He is not always right, but He is always sincere.

As for what he says in these clips, I think he is partially correct. But I think others are more correct who observe that many adherents to the Young Reformed movement are doing it because it is trendy or all that they know. In that way, they have counterparts in my generation in the Dispensationalist side. Many of my contemporaries didn’t understand what they believed either.

Mike

The problem here is that “Reformed” is now being defined by those who use it for their purposes, whether or not they are really Reformed enough to be accepted by the “real” reformed folks. I don’t want that to sound offensive but it’s the same thing that goes with the term “Fundamentalist.” There are way too many claiming to be Fundamentalists who have no clue about it BUT they are VERY conservative in their standards and they are definitely independent in their affiliations. Problem is that they are not “fundamental.” Their doctrine and practice aren’t even close but because they are conservative and claim to be fundies that’s what they are.

Case in point—most of you remember Phil Johnson’s comments about fundies and the subsequent caveat that he doesn’t mean the BJ, DBTS, etc. types of fundies. What Phil was doing is acknowledging the same thing. The titles can be co-opted without regard for the real commitment it takes to “be” the title being chosen.

I can’t imagine anyone really thinks that Mahaney, a Charismatic, is actually reformed. Seriously, can those two even co-exist in the same mind without permanent brain damage occurring? But, because he gives it some acknowledgement, he gets to be in the club. I’m not knocking Mahaney but I think it illustrates the point.

The YRR crowd is mainly as described by Mac. Charlie’s right that they aren’t actually “reformed” but they are “reformed” for all intents and purposes because they have claimed that they are. They will continue to say they are (at least as long as its “cool”) and their friends will call them reformed. They will attend “reformed” conferences and have their “reformed-ness” confirmed for them. Johnny Mac is a Calvinist, at least if finally falling over the “L” into all 5 points can legitimately make you one. He’s not Reformed. I’ve always appreciated his desire to let the Bible guide him instead of a system but, like Mike said, he seems to be hung up on shoving Limited Atonement. (See his book, Slave, particularly ch. 10)

There are several problems inherent in taking this YRR movement to be “Reformed.” One is the flattening of historical figures to the point that they no longer teach us what they should. When people reduce Reformed theology to the 5 points, we get caricatures: Calvin becomes the guy who invented Calvinism, John Owen the guy who defended definite atonement, and Jonathan Edwards the metaphysical genius behind Freedom of the Will.

These men have so much more to teach us. Calvin’s greatest contributions to theology are his theology of union with Christ (and the resulting duplex gratia), his sacramental theology of the Holy Spirit, and the threefold work of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. Oh yeah, and he systematized penal substitutionary atonement.

John Owen wrote a 11 or so volume commentary on Hebrews and did tremendous work on biblical theology. Jonathan Edwards resisted ecclesiastical compromise (halfway covenant), explored the religious affections, and brought the gospel to Native Americans.

These men deserve to be more than bullet points in a list of Calvinists. We need them to be more than that.

The young Reformed movement is dying of self-inflicted wounds, but the young Dispensational movement has not yet even begun to fight! H:)

Seriously, I love Dr. MacArthur’s vision and his teaching on the church; I can’t agree on the doctrines of grace, especially limited atonement.

But he is right on here. The forthcoming demise of the YRR movement was extremely predictable. It caught up probably thousands of young guys — many from our fundamental Baptist institutions — whose theological training was poor or non-existent, and gave them something solid to latch onto. When you mix in the worldly cultural approach of Driscoll et al, which seems at first to be a very odd combination, you get something very powerful — FOR A WHILE — until the effect wears off, and then these guys will be worse off than when they began.

May God have mercy on us — we need Bible teachers!!! (Luke 18:8)