John MacArthur, in an interview for Christianity.com, makes some very accurate criticism of the neo-Reformed movement. He talks about the “growing acquisition of Reformed soteriology among these young guys.” He then expresses his concerns that you can not have a “Reformed understanding of the doctrines of grace” and then act as an Arminian in everything else – for example, trying to blend in the prevailing pagan culture to reach the lost.
I heartily agree with John MacArthur’s criticism of the neo-Reformed crowd. In fact, some time ago I wrote a piece about that: “TULIP Doesn’t Mean Reformed, City on a Hill Does.” There is no such thing as “piecemeal Reformed.” You can’t be Reformed in your soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and not be Reformed in everything else; your worldview in every area of life must be in harmony with what you believe about God, Jesus Christ, Salvation, and the Kingdom of God. You can’t have divided loyalties when it comes to your comprehensive theology. MacArthur says that the neo-Reformed’s attempt to immerse in the pagan culture of the day will suck them back into the culture, and will make them lose their Reformed soteriology. He foresees the reversal of the Reformed revival.
What was disappointing, though, was that further in the interview MacArthur really doesn’t expand his own Reformed theology too far. He correctly identifies the problem of the neo-Reformed – that they are piecemeal Reformed – but then he himself only expands it to cover ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church). He doesn’t seem to be able to identify other areas of Christian thought and action beyond the church. Granted, it is important that the church is established as a covenant, multi-generational community; it is important that we have a Reformed doctrine of the church and of church leadership; and that we have Reformed ministers who minister to their flocks according to the principles we find in the Bible. But is this as far as we can go when we talk about Reformed doctrines?
In a glaring difference from MacArthur himself, when we go back to the Reformers and their intellectual heirs, the Puritans, we do not see their Reformed theology and practice limited to the Church and the salvation of individuals. We can’t even find one single Reformer whose work was limited to the Church only. In many respects, the Reformers were not only theological but social reformers as well, spending much of their time and effort building communities, cities, and nations in obedience to the Gospel. Geneva, Zurich, Strasbourg, the Netherlands, Scotland, Puritan England, the American colonies, were not known for their “religiously neutral” culture. To the contrary, much of the work of the church leaders at the time was building the legal, economic, and political structure of their communities and societies in accordance with the Biblical principles. In the words ascribed to Bucer, “Reformation is nothing less than the Christianization of all of life.” Far from limiting their Reformation to personal salvation and the church, these men wanted to see the whole world submit to God, in its politics, economics, science, business, cultural relations, international relations, etc. “City on a Hill” was what they were out to build, not a Reformed church preaching “grace” to a limited choice of religious topics.
Now, if MacArthur means that Reformation, I will gladly agree with him. Yes, we need comprehensive Reformation, one that doesn’t leave any area of our life outside of the reach of the Gospel. We need that Reformation that makes the Gospel a power for life in everything man thinks and does and is; and in everything his society is.
But that’s not what MacArthur has in mind. Just as the neo-Reformed he criticizes, his “Reformed” theology is limited to a few propositions about the religious thought and life of Christians. The church, the salvation of the individual, and may be the family. That’s it. MacArthur doesn’t see applications of his “Reformed” theology beyond that. If he does, he certainly never preaches on it. We never hear him preach on the Biblical principles for building a Christian culture – he only warns against the attraction of the pagan culture but never says what alternative there is. We never hear him preach on the Biblical principles for education, science, politics, law, art. We never hear him step beyond the little comfortable box of the church. He has no Biblical solutions for all of man’s life; he has no Biblical principles to offer to the world, only personal salvation. The creation and human society, in MacArthur’s view, is left outside of the scope of the Gospel.
In short, MacArthur is just as much piecemeal Reformed as the neo-Reformed he is criticizing.
Why is it? Why can’t MacArthur see that the legitimate criticism he levies against the “young guys” applies to himself as well? If he disapproves of others limiting the Reformed teaching to one thing only, why can’t he see that he is doing the same?
In the interview quoted above, and also in many of his articles and sermons, MacArthur’s view of the essence of the Reformed theology is that it is the “theology of grace.” “Grace” is his favorite word all the time when he talks about “Reformed theology.” He repeats the word in the interview many times, and he repeats it in many of his articles. Apparently he has made “grace” the foundation of his theology.
But there is a problem with making “grace” the foundation of theology. For one, “grace” is only one part of God’s nature; it only describes God in relation to man. To make it the foundation of one’s theology is to define God only in relation to man. God is then seen only as one Who dispenses individual salvation by grace, and that’s it. God’s main characteristic, and His main work in history is to save the individual soul of man. God has no other concerns but saving humans from hell. And therefore the foundation of theology is “grace.”
This theology of MacArthur, while borrowing some important truths from the Reformers, is very far from the true Reformed theology. It is rather a theology of man’s selfishness, or of man’s self-importance, dressed in a theologically correct garb. If all we see in God is “grace,” and if “theology of grace” is how we define our theology, we have limited our theology – and the Gospel – to a small portion of man’s life and action, the individual salvation of our souls. Making God subservient to our salvation – by making it the most important part of his theology – MacArthur is not different from the neo-Reformed he criticizes; he only has a different, more refined way of inviting the pagan culture of selfishness in the church. True, he doesn’t have holes in his jeans and he doesn’t wear an Abercrombie & Fitch shirt, neither does he have a beer can in his hand; but he does have a message that makes people believe that God is all about saving them, that Jesus is nothing more than a good fairy that hovers over His elected making sure they don’t go to hell. The spirit is the same, and the message is the same: God and His salvation exist FOR ME.
Contrary to MacArthur, the foundation of Reformed theology is not “grace.” Grace is only a logical corollary from the greatest Christian doctrine that has remained the standard for orthodoxy through all generations of the church: GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY. In God’s Sovereignty MacArthur has His doctrine of grace: We are saved because God is sovereign in salvation. Because God is sovereign in salvation, we know that no effort on our behalf – not even our faith – can save us; therefore we are saved by God’s grace. And in God’s sovereignty we have the assurance that we do not have to surrender to the pagan culture in order to reach the lost, as the neo-Reformed do; we only need to preach the Word, and God can change hearts without us having to manipulate people into the church with music, fashion styles, or obscene language.
But sovereignty as the foundation of our theology means much more. It also means that God is sovereign over history: History is the unfolding drama of God’s victory over His enemies, and it reveals the glory and power of God just as much as our individual salvation does. He is sovereign over culture: He demands that we as Christians build a comprehensive culture here on earth that manifests His excellencies just as much as our individual lives do. He is sovereign over law and ethics: He demands that His Law is made the foundation of that culture that His redeemed build on the earth, as a testimony to the unbelievers (Deut. 4:5-8). He is sovereign over economics: He requires that our individual economic actions and the economic policies of communities and nations obey His laws and moral principles. He is sovereign over civil government: He has specific qualifications for rulers and magistrates, and He requires that the church preaches them – and oppose ungodly rulers and magistrates when necessary. He is sovereign over every other area of life as well, over family, inheritance, education, science, art, music, fashion, etc. etc. God requires nothing less than Unconditional Surrender of the human civilization to His will, revealed in His Word.
This is what Reformed theology is all about. And this is why the Reformers did not set out to create simply churches. “City on a Hill” was their battle cry, a civilization that glorifies God in everything it does and believes.
But MacArthur is far from making God’s sovereignty the foundation for his theology. He doesn’t believe in God’s sovereignty in history; being a dispensationalist, MacArthur can’t see God’s victory manifested in history except in a very limited way; he only sees evil triumph in history. He doesn’t believe in God’s sovereignty over culture either; culture for MacArthur is always something evil we should avoid, or “address” at the most, but never something that can be redeemed, let alone rebuilt along Biblical lines. MacArthur doesn’t believe in God’s sovereignty over law and ethics either; there is no Biblical legal or ethical standard that can or should apply to modern man’s life and society. Economics, education, politics, and all these other areas of life are also outside of God’s sovereignty; MacArthur never talks about them, neither does he have a comprehensive social theory based on God’s revelation in the Bible that can teach us how to redeem those areas and make them Christian.
In short, by making grace instead of sovereignty the foundation of his “Reformed” theology, MacArthur effectively abandons the true Reformed theology, and becomes piecemeal Reformed: only a few Reformed doctrines, applied to only a few areas of life. In everything else he denies God’s sovereignty, and therefore he asserts man’s sovereignty by default – which is the essence of Arminianism. The criticism he levies against the neo-Reformed, applies to MacArthur himself: You can’t be Reformed in one area, and Arminian in all other areas. MacArthur’s Reformed doctrine of grace can not be used as a free pass to ignore the foundational doctrine of the Reformation: The sovereignty of God in every area of life, with no exceptions.
Therefore, MacArthur is wrong when he says that there will be a “reversal in the Reformed revival.” There hasn’t been a Reformed revival to start with, and what he calls “Reformed revival” is not. It is simply a remake of the old man-centered Arminian doctrines in a theologically correct garb. When the knowledge of God is reduced to God’s grace in personal salvation and to ecclesiology, this is not revival, this is only an attempt on the part of man to find theological justification for his arrogance and autonomy. The neo-Reformed are not Reformed at all, and neither is MacArthur. We shall know a Reformed revival by the re-emergence of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty over every area of man’s life and society. Anything less than that – including MacArthur’s theology – is simply piecemeal Reformed, or, more exact, modified Arminianism.
A Reformed missionary to his native Bulgaria for over 10 years, Bojidar preaches and teaches doctrines of the Reformation and a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Having founded Bulgarian Reformation Ministries in 2001, he and his team have translated over 30,000 pages of Christian literature about the application of the Law of God in every area of man’s life and society, and published those translations online for free. He has been active in the formation of the Libertarian movement in Bulgaria, a co-founder of the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty and its first chairman. If you would like Bojidar to speak to your church, homeschool group or other organization, contact him through his website: http://www.bulgarianreformation.org/
Of course, God saves us THROUGH our faith and “to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” God prepares the good works in advance but we do indeed do them.
I don” understand why you are saying being a dispensationalist limits a person’s view of God’s sovereignty. I don’t think so.
There were a lot of bright people in the church for fifteen hundred years before John Calvin. What a shame that few understood much of anything until Calvin’s lights came on! God created man with free will and choice, including His only begotten son.
I wonder if Calvin ever “chose” to repent of the murder of Dr. Michael Servetus (and others) before he died? Or did he die in that iniquity presuming upon the grace of God and other mechanisms of his own theological system?!
After you tell us what the magistrate is supposed to do with the “sword” in Romanos 13 and why it was used by so many holy magistrates in the Bible, you can tell us about “murder”.
You seem to suggest that Calvin and those who acted in his behalf in Geneva were indeed “holy magistrates” wielding the sword. Or were they more of a quasi-official religious lynch mob concerned with their proud dogma and the protection of their turf?! This had far more to do with testosterone than with doing the work of God!
Servetus was executed by the state, the city fathers of Geneva, in accordance with their heresy laws; the same city fathers that hated Calvin and kicked him out of his own church.
It sort of depends on whose historical version one leans into.
You make yourself look silly. What a lot of unqualified and confused assertions. Calvin murdered noone, so give up your little smokescreen. Check Christian history and see how many Biblical communities or nations punished lawlessness (both tables.) Servetus was duly warned not to come back to Geneva (BY CALVIN HIMSELF!) and would have fared no better in the AntiChristian Roman Catholic states. Calvin innovating a theological system…oh, please say something that will allow us to take you seriously. Your silly little caricatures are a reproach to you, pastor Calvin, and His Savior. I’m making a wild guess, please tell me if I’m right: jumped on the 1800′s neoorthodox dispy wagon and are a crusader for “natural law” (all except for prohibition, “American values,” Neoconservatism and national Israel first, last and always even if they act like the biggest terrorists in the Middle East)? The charge you level would fit you well. I’m sure you’re convinced that there was no light in the church until the Plymouth Bretheren in 1827. Come with some genuine discussion or please don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
Regardless of what the Reformers taught, I would defend as biblical that individuals must first be transformed before society can be transformed.
OK, defend it. Show me where in the Bible such difference is made and where is that “first” and “then” expressed.
I must apologize. I made a post before reading all the comments. Finally a true consistent reconstuctionist. Force in on the people. The people don’t like the idea of a young women being forced to marry her rapist, too bad. No need to convince them, just get the power and force it. The funny thing is, and I may be wrong about this. John MacArthur believes God wants us to execute homosexuals.
If all we see in God is “grace,” and if “theology of grace” is how we define our theology, we have limited our theology – and the Gospel – to a small portion of man’s life and action, the individual salvation of our souls.
God’s grace is a SMALL portion? You’re just not thinking about what you’re saying. I hope.
For one, “grace” is only one part of God’s nature; it only describes God in relation to man.
Not women?
In many respects, the Reformers were not only theological but social reformers as well, spending much of their time and effort building communities, cities, and nations in obedience to the Gospel. Geneva, Zurich, Strasbourg, the Netherlands, Scotland, Puritan England, the American colonies, were not known for their “religiously neutral” culture. To the contrary, much of the work of the church leaders at the time was building the legal, economic, and political structure of their communities and societies in accordance with the Biblical principles.
True, so what happened? Why did it not take. God wasn’t ready? They didn’t do it right? God couldn’t help them do it right but will help you or some future people? If the people were not ready for it good luck trying it now, as a “Godly” society we are way worse, certainly not ready now.
his “Reformed” theology is limited to a few propositions about the religious thought and life of Christians.
Now hang on minute. I thought reconstructionists believed that also. That the Kingdom of God was to be brought about by personal salvation of the people and not by force of the State or Church. Now I know you guys are building blueprints for when that happens and so should all christians. But this sounds alittle like “I just can’t wait that long” kinda talk. Does the Kingdom come by salvation first or by force of law. If John MacArthur is preaching salvation then it should be great, for that’s what we need to bring in the Kingdom. He is accuually doing you guys a favor by not preaching a complete “gospel” for if he did preach that God wants homosexuals executed and young women who are raped to be forced to marry thier rapist only after money changes hands between said rapist and her father he would 99% of his people. So let’s get them saved first then tell them the truth. No wait, that would be deceitful, guess we’ll just have to wait for that great catastrophe then people will be ready to believe in the “gospel”. I’m starting to get confused on exactly how you are working to bring in the Kingdom. Only two ways as I see it. 1. Strength and might or 2. Spirit. Seems many times you favor the former.
The fact is, we don’t bring in the kingdom. That’s what Jesus did through His death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and what He will finally do at His return. However, there are two means by which the kingdom’s coming has become, is becoming, and will become more apparent in this age: evangelism and providence. We preach the comprehensive gospel that “In Christ, all the nations of the earth will be justified.” That’s what Paul meant in Galatians 3:8 is talking about: the nations will be justified in Christ as sons of Abraham. The gospel, according to Paul, is the postmillennial gospel: that justification will come to the nations before the day of judgment comes. God is also, while we are preaching the gospel, tearing down the political strongholds (“all rule and all authority and power” -1 Corinthians 15:24), until the nations are completely Christianized (Ps. 22:27-29), thus leading to the millennial era (Rev. 20:1-3, Ps. 22:29-30), and finally to the day of judgment (Zech. 14:1-5, Rev. 20:7-15) and the New Heavens and New Earth, in which all the godly nations shall dwell (Zech. 14:16-21, Rom. 8:19-21, Eph. 1:10, Col. 1:19-20, Rev. 21:24).
We also need to realize that it’s not our job to “wait for the Holy Spirit to regenerate the heart.” There’s not that much Scriptural evidence that regeneration precedes saving faith. Actually, we receive the Holy Spirit after saving faith, in connection with justification (Gal. 3:2, Eph. 1:13-14). However, God the Father does providentially call unbelievers to faith in the gospel (Rom. 8:30).
It’s not about dichotomizing God’s grace with His law either. His law is gracious. The question all has to do with us: do we think it’s gracious?
What you’re saying is don’t knock the man laying the cornerstone. That being Jesus Christ, just because he doesn’t see his calling as yours, on top of the steeple setting the crown. No cornerstone….No crown.
Macaruther (and other’s eschatalogically myopic brothers)laying the cornerstone…Christ being the cornerstone, while TR brethren look to the full triumphant glory of Christ over all things to the church…hence a crown (not a cross) atop the spire.
While schatalogically myopic brothers are busy laying the cornerstone which is Christ, TR brethren are looking to the ultimate victory of Christ as Head over all things to the church, they are looking to the finished result, which ought to be visually/symbolically represented by a crown not a cross.
@Roger Oliver – This is perhaps the most disturbing thing that I have read today in all the responses to the article: “In my lifetime I grew up thinking the whole story of the Bible was about salvation, my personal redemption from sin. I now believe it is a sub-plot. The main story is growing up from childhood to maturity, from creation to glory. Another sub-plot is spiritual warfare. All three are important but I believe we lose something important when we limit the Bible to the story of redemption and we produce a truncated, emasculated Christianity.” The Bible, though containing many things, is primarily the unfolding of God’s plan to save His people through His Son Jesus Christ. This is not a sub-plot and to reduce it to a minor point (a sub-plot) undermines the Scriptures. What is the song of the redeemed that will be sung in heaven? It is about the Lamb, Jesus Christ, that was slain for sinners. It is not how we grow “up from childhood to maturity, from creation to glory.”
Robert, yours is the typical response of the man-centered, humanistic, selfish, egotistical caricature of Christianity which has made its central doctrine that God’s main goal is not His Kingdom and His glory but the salvation of our little souls. Instead of making our salvation subservient – a sub-plot – to the grandiose plan of glorifying God in history and in eternity, you make God’s glory subservient to your salvation; because you deem your salvation to be more important than God’s glory. This is, unfortunately, the very foundation of MacArthur’s teachings, and of all the neo-Reformed like him.
This man-centered “gospel” also blinds you to the Scriptures, and you see in them only what God has done FOR YOU, not what God has done for His own glory. Indicative of that thinking is your reference to Revelation:
But what do we see when we actually read the song? Do the redeemed focus on “slain for sinners”? Let’s see Revelation 5:12-13:
Does the Song say that the Lamb was slain “for sinners”? Are sinners even mentioned in the Song? Not that sinners are not saved through the death of Christ, of course, but is that the main point in the Song? No, but the main point is, the Lamb was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing. And then what again? To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.
Do you see now how unbiblical and man-centered your religion is?
Yes, I agree that God’s glory is the goal of God. But where do we see that portrayed most vividly? In the cross of Christ. The glory of God is forever and ever whether you or I choose to acknowledge it or not. God delights in the saving of souls because it does bring Him glory. arguing your from what the Scriptures do not say (from silence) is a very dangerous way to interpret Scripture. We need to interpret Scripture with Scripture and not from silence. If boasting in the cross of Christ for my salvation makes my religion man-centered and unbiblical then I wonder where you stand in relation to the teaching of the apostle Paul who boasted not in himself but in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:22-31).
You say and I quote, “This man-centered “gospel” also blinds you to the Scriptures, and you see in them only what God has done FOR YOU, not what God has done for His own glory.” I believe that you are misunderstanding what is meant by what I stated in my post. The Scriptures aree clear that yes everything that God does He does for His glory. But we cannot deny that you and I as believers in Christ are to be the gracious recipients of this sacrifice or it makes the death of Christ to no avail. The Bible makes it clear that Christ came to save sinful men and that this act is not so that we can boast in ourselves but in the Christ who saved us (Matthew 1:21).
God never gets over the gospel. I pray that neither do we.
Then, Robert, if you agree, you need to take back the following words:
No, it isn’t “primarily” that. Neither is the cross “primarily” for the salvation of sinners, as we saw from the correct quote from Revelation 5. (Your quote was false.) God’s plan is to make His glory known to the creation. He may do that by saving some people, but he also does it through condemning some people. Your little soul is not the locus of God’s glory; it is only a fortunate recipient of grace that is not necessary for God to glorify Himself. The only reason you used the word “primarily” – and also quoted falsely the Song of the redeemed – is because you are exactly what I described you: man-centered, humanistic, selfish, and eager to subject God to your need of salvation. There is no other explanation for the use of the word “primarily” and for the false quote.
You need to change to the true Gospel. The Gospel that places God – not you or your need of salvation – in the center of the universe. The Gospel that acknowledges that you are too insignificant to claim to be God’s primary purpose in His plan. The Gospel that tells you that your soul is not God’s primary concern, but God’s sovereignty and His Kingdom must be your primary concern. The Gospel that doesn’t just make you revel passively in your salvation but forces you to expand the Kingdom of Christ established at the Cross. Because this is the Cross: Payment for the sin of the WORLD, with the purpose of establishing Christ’s authority over the whole WORLD, thus giving Christ glory, and through Christ, glorifying God. In comparison to that, your salvation is just a sub-plot, like Roger said. If you try to make it God’s primary plot, you are not of the Gospel.
BO: “But what do we see when we actually read the song? Do the redeemed focus on “slain for sinners”?”
No, actually it is the four living beings and the 24 elders who sing of ransomed “sinners” -
Rev 5:9-10
9 and they sang a new song,
“You are worthy to take the scroll and break its seals;
because you were slaughtered;
at the cost of blood you ransomed for God
persons from every tribe, language, people and nation.
10 You made them into a kingdom for God to rule,
cohanim to serve him;
and they will rule over the earth.”
CJB
Thus, the basis of the praise of the redeemed (bought out of Sin and bondage) and then the entire universe is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The Lamb of God who taketh away the Sin of the world.
The purpose of the ekklesia is to demonstrate to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies the manifold wisdom of God, not His Glory, which they have all witnessed. The Accuser and the Rebels maligned God, claiming He is unrighteous, not worthy of rule.
The Lamb of God proves that God is love, in esse, demonstrating to all creation that He, and the Lamb (verse 13) are both worthy of all praise and glory.
The creation, according to Paul, is groaning as it awaits not the revelation of the glory of God, but the manifestation of all the “Robert’s”, ridiculed in your typical fashion.
The thing that you and your ilk miss, Mr. BO, is the kenosis, without which there is no Lamb of God, and thus, no glory to Him. He set aside His Glory as Logos, as it was in question by the Accuser and the Rebels. As the Lamb, He became the Head of a New Creation – a kingdom made up of ransomed sinners – where in God will reign and rule – and they shall rule the earth.
Phil 2:5-9
5 Let your attitude toward one another be governed by your being in union with the Messiah Yeshua:
6 Though he was in the form of God,
he did not regard equality with God
something to be possessed by force.
7 On the contrary, he emptied himself,
in that he took the form of a slave
by becoming like human beings are.
And when he appeared as a human being,
8 he humbled himself still more
by becoming obedient even to death —
death on a stake as a criminal!
9 Therefore God raised him to the highest place
and gave him the name above every name;
CJB
God is love, and also a consuming fire.
The “One Kingdom” is made up of ransomed sinners, BO. There are no others in that Kingdom, save God and His Son, Yeshua who is our Pesach.
Salvation is not an end in itself – it is simply a means to an end. The end is that God the Father might present a chosen people to His Son as His inheritance. This inheritance (we Christians who are adopted into the Father’s family) will rule and reign with Christ in a world so glorious that we can’t begin to imagine how wonderful it will be. This world is to be transformed, not simply back to its Edenic state, it will be infinitely more wonderful. The glory of Christ will be revealed (which is the purpose of the creation) for all to see – saved and unsaved alike. The saved will not only see His glory, but will share in and enjoy that glory. The unsaved will aslo see His glory, but will forever suffer at the hand of the Father.
Yes, the Bible is about much more than my personal salvation from sin. My salvation is a part of it, but only a part.
Excellent article, again, Bojidar. Whether it is right in all particulars about MacArthur, I can’t say. But it certainly describes the neo-Reformed position to a tee.
Alex A
UK
Bojidar:
I don’t think you are very familiar with the details of MacArthur’s 40-year ministry. I would say that he has taught from the Bible viewpoints on every one of these categories you list, except perhaps on Math. He may not have your view of these things, but then again there are many Reformed people who disagree with your views on many of these things as well. Otherwise, you would not be part of a distinct movement within the Reformed camp attempting to move your brethren and others in your direction.
1. Biblical social theory
2. Biblical economics
3. Biblical political theory
4. Biblical view of rights
5. Biblical view of law, justice, and civil rights
6. Biblical view of science
7. Biblical view of history
8. Biblical view of money, banking, inflation, debt
9. Biblical view of family, welfare, inheritance
10. Biblical view of education
11. Biblical view of war and international relations
12. Biblical view of mathematics
13. Biblical view of arts, literature, and aesthetics
14. Biblical view of slavery
I was discipled by a thoroughgoing dispensationalist who has a degree from MIT (with honors) in math. He also is a graduate in Hebrew from Dallas Seminary and has a biblical view math and all of the items on your list. He is Van Tilian in his epistemology and has developed what he calls “The Biblical Framework” where he teaches the biblical view in every area of life, including the 14 items in your list. Dispensationalism reflects the biblical view of history. This person is Charles Clough and his website where you can listen to his 224 lessons on the biblical framework is as follows: http://www.bibleframework.com. While you are there, you might want to listen to his still in progress series on Deuteronomy.
As a 6-day creationist, Clough has taught that Reformed Theology tended to stifle the development of creation science by making future history (i.e., a literal interpretation of prophecy or future history into a soteriological allegory by running the Old Testament through the lens of the Covenant of Grace. This is why the overwhelming majority of creation scientists have been dispensationalist, because they take Genesis and Revelation the same way—literal.
It is obvious that most dispensationalists do not think within the framework of a biblical theology in every area of life. But I believe that Clough and some others have shown that it is not only possible, but preferable to certain types of Dominion Theology when developed. Don’t forget that dispensationalism, for its first 100 years, was developed exclusively within the Reformed womb as a rival to covenant theology.
I am willing to be corrected. Please provide links to where MacArthur presents his comprehensive theology and talks specifically on these issues.
I think I am familiar enough with the details of his ministry to claim that he doesn’t – and I am basing my observations on sermons and articles of his where he limits the Gospel to individual salvation. I am also basing my observations on the product he turns out: I know many people who were influenced by his ministry, and most of them are surprised that I as a Christian am even interested in such “worldly” topics. If the product MacArthur produces if so utterly ignorant of the Biblical view of things, then either MacArthur is not the teacher he is claimed to be, or he doesn’t have any teachings on these issues.
Bojidar:
Dave has given you links to two of the items you say do not exist. True, they are not always the views you would have on these items, but they are views that you say he has not developed. As I noted earlier, there are many within the Reformed camp that don’t agree with you views, which is why Rushdoony started the Christian Reconstructionist Movement which you are a part of.
I have not listened to MacArthur in years, but I used to listen to his tapes for many years, which I cannot link. I heard him, as he teaches through the Bible, deal with these issues in a systematic way developing theology in these areas. Are you trying to say that MacArthur has not taught a political theory? Then why has DeMar and others on this site been critical of some of the things he taught in that area if he did not teach what he believes to be a biblical political theory. He has certainly taught a biblical view of science via his biblical views on creation. He just came out with a book called “Slave.” Do you think he has not taught a biblical view of education?
MacArthur does not limit his preaching to salvation only. Regardless of what the Reformers taught, I would defend as biblical that individuals must first be transformed before society can be transformed. That is exactly what classical postmillennialism has taught, which is why their emphasis upon the conversion of a majority of the people in the world before the millennial phase of the kingdom would appear. Warfield taught that every individual at some point in history would be personally saved.
Please show me a link or a quote to support you false testimony about MacArthur when you claim: “MacArthur . . . doesn’t even believe we should have a comprehensive theology in any of these areas.” You are so locked in on your views that you cannot even look at others and assess them fairly. You may have a “biblical” view of justice, but you apparently do not know how to apply it in this situation.
I don’t think you read what I said. I said that the links do not contain any views on these issues. They claim to talk on the issues but they don’t. Especially the first one is very misleading: “Government from a Biblical perspective,” but then the real topic of the piece is, “There is no Biblical perspective on government, government is not a Christian thing to worry about in the first place.”
This is the same as a mother who pretends to feed her children, sets the table with plates and forks and spoons etc., but puts no food in the plates. The table and the plates and the utensils are of no consequence if there is no food on the table – the mother is starving her children. Same applies to MacArthur, in the links you provide. It’s not that his views are different from mine; the issue is, he doesn’t have any, and he doesn’t preach any.
OK, defend it. Show me where in the Bible such difference is made and where is that “first” and “then” expressed.
That’s easy. In one of the links, MacArthur says the following:
So, if there is no such things as a Christian country and a Christian government, can there be a Christian philosophy of government? If there is one, what is it good for, if there is no such thing as a Christian country and a Christian government? Can Christians rule? If they can’t, do they need a philosophy of government? If they can, what is their rule, a pagan rule? Either way, if there is no such thing as a Christian country or Christian government, there is no need for any comprehensive philosophy for righteous government.
This article hits the nail on the head. I remember listening to John MacArthur years ago and learning much about the sovereignty of the Lord concerning election and salvation. At the time I was in an arminian church and his teaching helped correct much misunderstanding I had about grace… For this I am grateful. But where is the traditional reformed teaching on the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ? I don’t think you’ll find this in John MacArthur’s books – if so, please tell me and I’ll admit my error. Thanks.
If you have ever read the totality of John MacArthur’s work or listened to his sermons over the years, you would have no doubt that the man’s theology is not just based on grace. He has preached and taught about God’s sovereignty probably longer than you have been alive.
It is true that his view is that the Church is to be about the business of converting hearts and minds to Christ using the Word of God to transform the individual. Once an individual is transformed, the effect on society should be evident. Each individual believer is the “city on the hill.”
Your belief that Christians will transform all of society through the Gospel message and that we will experience the reign of Christ on earth through the Church on earth is bound to be experiencing troubles. The Church is like Christ’s parable of the woman who is making a batch of dough with leaven in it. The leaven is the sin that Christ knew would be part of the ever growing batch of dough which is the Church. Do you honestly believe that Christ would give a parable showing a sinful Church and then expect that Church to usher in paradise?
People would do well to read more of John MacArthur. Then, they might be able to make sense of what we see throughout the world today. He’s got it right.
I’d be glad to be wrong about him. Please provide links to MacArthur’s views of:
1. Biblical social theory
2. Biblical economics
3. Biblical political theory
4. Biblical view of rights
5. Biblical view of law, justice, and civil rights
6. Biblical view of science
7. Biblical view of history
8. Biblical view of money, banking, inflation, debt
9. Biblical view of family, welfare, inheritance
10. Biblical view of education
11. Biblical view of war and international relations
12. Biblical view of mathematics
13. Biblical view of arts, literature, and aesthetics
14. Biblical view of slavery
The Reformers had them all; they didn’t limit their preaching to the church and salvation only, neither did they believe that you “first transform the individual, and then society is transformed.” MacArthur has nothing in these areas; he doesn’t even believe we should have a comprehensive theology in any of these areas.
Your interpretation of the parable of the leaven is incorrect. Jesus didn’t say the leaven is sin, He said it symbolizes the Kingdom of heaven. The Kingdom of heaven can not be sin.
Government: http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/80-363_Government-in-Biblical-Perspective#.Tl7q1OtwbXQ
Work/Economics: http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/80-362_A-Theology-of-Work#.Tl7rSutwbXQ
I agree that MacArthur does not formally have each of these catagories spelled out in the manner that American Vision does. He does however cover and offer a answer to most of these topics. We all know MacAthur’s approach his to teach verse by verse and he covers concepts as he covers scriptures. He does not teach topic by topic.
The first one, on government, is not really the Biblical view of government, it is a treatise on why government should remain non-Christian, and what Christians must do in relation to this non-Christian government. It has nothing on how a righteous ruler should rule, and what the Biblical principles of government are. In fact, the sermon ends with the conclusion that “there is no such thing as Christian government.” So basically he is saying that the Bible says nothing about government.
The second one, on “theology of work,” is a very chaotic piece, without any expressed underlying principle, just unconnected thoughts and slogans thrown in. I tried to figure out what exactly he teaches on the nature of work, economy, or money, but to no avail. The piece is very simplistic and amateurish – my 14yo daughter writes better pieces than that, better organized and clearer in their exposition.
If these are MacArthur’s “teachings” on these issues, then my point stands: He doesn’t have teachings on these issues.
Oh, and by the way, since you are not going to find MacArthur’s views in any of these areas – because he doesn’t have them – if you ask where you can find anything about that, I can help you. There are true Reformed teachers, heirs of the Reformation (unlike MacArthur) who have written on all these topics.
Bojidar:
Now when you comment on Dave’s post showing you wrong on your overall point, you then say that MacArthur does not measure up to your views of government or theology of work. That is not your original point! Your original point was that MacArthur does not even deal with these categories. So it appears that no matter what he says in a given area you will rationalize it away. My early point about you lack of justice stands. What you are really saying is that MacArthur does not have my view of these matters, which means he is unbiblical in these areas.
By the way, I have had just the opposite experience with MacArthur disciples. I have often found them learned and willing to discuss these categories from a biblical perspective.
Daniel’s response is a bit like the husband who was caught dead to rights not keeping his promises to be home by a certain time. “Give me an example,” he said. His wife replied, “Two weeks ago Saturday you promised to be home in the afternoon to play with the kids and you never came.” He changed the argument insisting it was Friday not Saturday that he failed. The point still stands that he failed.
Whether or not MacArthur has written articles about these subjects, the point stands that his theology is built on Grace rather than Sovereignty and it shows in the emphasis of his overall ministry.
I recall reading an article or pamphlet by MacArthur that was published in the last decade about the Christian’s role in politics. I can’t find the title now but I remember is very well. His argument was to take Romans 13:1-8 to the extreme, to never resist any governmental authority. At the time it occurred to me that if the founders had read and believed his pamphlet we would still be colonies of the British empire. I was still very much a dispensationalist at the time so my conclusion was not based on the influence of the Christian reconstruction movement.
One of my favorite radio preachers is Chuck Swindoll who also emphasizes grace. I’m a graduate of DTS and was at the school when Chuck was the president. Just yesterday I read an editorial he wrote in the seminary’s magazine Kindred Spirit. The title of the article was “The Freedom of Grace.” It was all very good and inspiring but it lacked detail. I was left to myself to define liberty and license, bondage and freedom. The Bible defines these in terms of God’s law. Sanctification is growth and maturity in obedience to God’s law. The New Covenant is the same as the old in the sense that the deal is the Triune God will be our God and we will obey his commandments. Because he is sovereign, that’s the deal, take it or leave it. Without sovereignty, justice and righteousness, grace has no meaning. Grace and the law are not in conflict with each other. The law is a gift of God’s grace.
Yesterday a young man came to me allegedly for marriage counseling, said he wanted to do God’s will but was unsure what it was. Turned out he was not married to the girl, just off and on dating and they have a child together. I asked him what his first mistake was. He said, “Leaving my old girlfriend?” I replied rather directly, “No, you slept with her. You produced a child outside of wedlock. You broke the 7th commandment.”
This young man professed to be a Christian. This is not an unusual experience, that is to say he is not an aberration of what Christians believe these days. Some context, I’m a missionary in Mexico and I’m talking about people from evangelical churches mostly planted by North American missionaries.
Let’s concede the point that MacArthur has written about these topics. The argument is not about personal opinions, i.e. Bo doesn’t like it because he doesn’t agree with MacArthur. That misses the point entirely which is that MacArthur is wrong on these points as a logical, rational consequence of making the starting point grace rather than sovereignty. Make a case that the starting point of our theology ought to be grace rather than sovereignty and we’ll progress. Making an issue of what titles or subjects MacArthur has written about is a rabbit trail.
As much as I admire MacArthur, and I am sure he is a godly man, I agree with Bo that MacArthur is wrong on these points.
In my lifetime I grew up thinking the whole story of the Bible was about salvation, my personal redemption from sin. I now believe it is a sub-plot. The main story is growing up from childhood to maturity, from creation to glory. Another sub-plot is spiritual warfare. All three are important but I believe we lose something important when we limit the Bible to the story of redemption and we produce a truncated, emasculated Christianity.
What happened to the militant church on the march to victory…in time…the one C.S. Lewis talks about in the Screwtape letters in formation with their war banners waving in the wind. The demon said to his protege, “That picture of the church as a victorious army causes our most audacious soldiers to tremble. Fortunately to us it is a picture entirely invisible to most Christians.” Could it be that we don’t see it because modern Christianity indeed does emphasize grace rather than sovereignty? It is for sure a very anthropocentric version of the faith.
“You can’t have divided loyalties when it comes to your comprehensive theology. MacArthur says that the neo-Reformed’s attempt to immerse in the pagan culture of the day will suck them back into the culture,…”
Hence my concern for justifying modern day Libertarianism.
One has to wonder if MacArthur’s lack of emphasis on the Sovereignty of God has to do with his dispensational beliefs – that the world will only get worse untill Christ has to come in person to save it from total destruction by mankind since we Christians are powerless to stop the decline of civilization – that satan rules the world because Christ is powerless until He physically returns.
I think Len has a very good point here!
Is Dispensationalism necessarily mutually exclusive with the Sovereignty of God? I’ve been wondering a lot lately whether or not Dispensationalism and a high view of the Sovereignty of God in every square inch of every sphere of human life is really as imcompatible as it is sometimes made out.
In theory, no dispensationalism certainly does not exclude the Sovereignty of God. Indeed, dispensationalist theologians would argue they have a very high view of the sovereignty of God in every sphere of human life. As one who grew up in a thoroughly dispensational Christiam home, I certainly would have defended my own high view of God’s sovereignty. It is in our hymns and choruses after all.
However, the argument might go something like this: God has sovereignly decreed to cede time to Satan until the second coming of Christ, which will be after a rapture of the church followed by 7 years of tribulation.
In practice, that leads one to the logical conclusion that God has sovereignly chosen not to exercise his sovereignty over every area of life in our time. He is not “exercising” his sovereignty over civil government, economics, civil contracts, etc. We have to look elsewhere, other than the Bible that is, for answers to the questions about how to vote, how to make our businesses and families work, what is justice, how to fight crime, what is honest money, how should the banking system work, etc.
If that sounds like a contradiction in terms that is because it is. No dispensationalist in his right mind would admit to this but if you follow the theology to its logical conclusion this is where it will take you.
Many popular Christian books reflect this in a lightly Christianized secular humanism. Just for one example, secular humanist anthropology has a huge influence in modern missions. It leaves no room for God to confront culture that is not submitted to his sovereignty. We hope and pray for transformation but we do not teach our disciples that God has an answer to the questions of everyday life, that He intends to rule over every human heart…in time. We talk in vague terms about cultural change but have a hard time defining what that looks like. I’d venture to guess that this is because we modern Christians tend to be antinomian, that is we reject God’s law as the definition of all that is good and right including its blessings and cursings.
This is one of the reasons why Christendom in America is politically schizophrenic and ineffective in restraining evil in our time. For all our efforts, we seem incapable of slowing the stampede towards decadence at ever increasing velocity. What I often hear from my dispensationalist brethern, here in Mexico as well as in the US, is, “Well, these are the last days after all. What do you expect?”
Combine the fatalism that is characteristic of Mexican culture with eschatological pessimism and you have a recipe for a church that preaches and sings about the King of Kings on Sundays but worships the federal government in practice. Marxism still rules the thinking of many Christians here because they have not been taught that the Bible has alternative answers that apply today, right now!
So, in practice, followers, at least of the popular version of dispen-sensationalism, live as if God were not sovereign over every centimeter of the universe. That is my take on it as a former dispensationalist…for what it’s worth.
Thank you Roger for your interaction. I don’t want to cause a scene as I respect and have grown from much of what American Vision has to offer over the years. I wanted to comment about this remark you made:
“However, the argument might go something like this: God has sovereignly decreed to cede time to Satan until the second coming of Christ, which will be after a rapture of the church followed by 7 years of tribulation.
In practice, that leads one to the logical conclusion that God has sovereignly chosen not to exercise his sovereignty over every area of life in our time. He is not “exercising” his sovereignty over civil government, economics, civil contracts, etc. We have to look elsewhere, other than the Bible that is, for answers to the questions about how to vote, how to make our businesses and families work, what is justice, how to fight crime, what is honest money, how should the banking system work, etc.”
It seems to me that it still does not necessarily follow that just because Satan will have a significant role in human affairs that God has therefore abdicated His Sovereignty. Even when Satan is ruling over certain spheres of human experience, Satan still “rules” through some form of human agents (and of course as Calvinist, God is still truly in control). God Sovereignty is still true in that one day, He will judge Satan and human beings who were governing, etc. Human beings as creatures are called to give an account of their stewardship. This judgment presupposes God’s Sovereignty and also a STANDARD as Theonomist would love to point out. That standard of God is God’s law. God’s Word does have something to say about every square inch and sphere of this world.
I also believe that while the church is still here (assuming a Dispensational framework), no matter how “near” the end might be…the end is not yet here. Christians are still on earth and must do something to advance God’s Work (not just evangelism!) and live faithfully according to His principles in every sphere, knowing that He will give an account for it one day and not just say “Oh master, I knew you were coming back and things was tough, but I didn’t do anything about it because you know, you were coming back…”
What you are missing is the manifestation of God’s glory in history. While theoretically it can be argued that God still has the glory while history is delivered to Satan, or that God has His sovereignty while in history Satan controls and wins, such argument misses the fact that God’s sovereignty never goes without manifestation of God’s glory. And that means that history, in order to be under God’s sovereignty, must exhibit visibly God’s glory.
Think of the applications of your philosophy to your personal life. Can you say that if you let Satan rules certain areas of your life, this is just the same manifestation of God’s glory and sovereignty as when your life is completely obedient to God? If you steal, murder, commit adultery, beat your wife and children, give false witness, are you glorifying God? Isn’t God glorified when your life is more and more committed to Jesus and therefore is more sanctified?
In the same way, history will manifest God’s glory by becoming more and more sanctified, i.e. the nations will come to Christ and obey Him. If Satan is ruling over certain spheres of human experience, even if that is under God’s control, it is still not a manifestation of God’s glory – and if God self-consciously made history to be under Satan’s control, then indeed, God has abdicated His sovereignty. It is not just the Last Judgment that will manifest God’s glory; history will do it too.
Thank you Bojidar for those food for thought. I thank God for your passion in defending a Christian worldview, articulation of theonomy and now even responding to my comment! Do you think the label of “Dispensational Theonomist” is totally problematic? What I mean by Dispensational Theonomy is the belief that Israel is Israel and the church is the church and that there’s still promises God has for Israel waiting to be fulfilled in the future, while also believing in a threefold division of the Law in which the Moral and Civil laws are universally applicable in the past, present and future to govern human experience, spheres and institution (family, individual and government)?
Actually, most theonomists believe in a two-fold division of the Law – shadows (which image the coming Christ) and the real thing (what is broadly what you call Moral and Civil laws). Calvin, for example, if you read carefully the Institutes, Book 4, ch. 20, seems to include the death penalty with the Moral Law, and only the mode of execution with the civil laws. But I understand what you are saying.
No, I don’t find it totally problematic – any theonomist is my friend even if they hold views which I find incomplete or wrong on other theological issues – but I do find it problematic. The reason is that there can’t be a common theological ground for both dispensationalism and theonomy. Theonomy is logically based on covenant theology, on the idea of one redemptive covenant of God with the redeemed humanity. But if dispensationalism believes in different sets of promises for the church and Israel, then what is the covenantal status of Israel and what is the covenantal status of the Church? Which one is the true bride? And what’s the status of the other? If dispensationalism says that Israel rejected Jesus, and he therefore changed His plan to the Church to drive Israel to jealousy and bring them back to Him, then Israel is the true Bride and the Church is only a temporary consort sort of concubine. But if the Church is the true bride, then what is the status of Israel except a harlot that has forfeited any promises and any rights to return to her Husband?
Dear Friend in Christ,
Asking cogent questions and interacting over subject matter rather than persons is not making a scene, unless you are writing conservative opinions on the Huffington Post. This is the way civilized people discuss matters and learn.
Bo has answered most of your questions. I had a similar discussion with him via email some time ago. I left convinced that any argument that God had sovereignly ceded time before the rapture, tribulation, the second advent, and the following millennium per dispensational premillennialism, was necessarily logically incoherent.
If you read my post carefully I did not say that God was abdicating his sovereignty. I said the argument might go something like this… How does one reconcile God’s absolute sovereignty with a pessimistic outlook on time before the rapture? That’s the best I could come up with and pretty much how I thought. It created a lot of intellectual and practical tension.
More importantly, the proof is in the pudding. How do average Christians live their lives based on their theology? Most do not make sophisticated arguments like yours; they just live according to the logical conclusions of what they hear from the pulpit. Hard evidence is what I observe and hear from Christians these days, those who are not “in the ministry.” In terms of any hope for redeeming the time before the rapture, of fighting against the current cultural free fall into decadence the common response is, “What do you expect? It’s the last days after all,” quoting from 2 Timothy 3:1-5.
I always have believed that God would someday hold us accountable but for what? It was pretty much limited to the number of people with whom I shared the Gospel and faithfully confessing and teach dispensational theology. Down deep inside I knew better but I could not satisfactorily explain why work was not just a necessary evil. After all, don’t the real saints take up their cross by going into full time ministry?
If I do not believe God is redeeming my time (before the rapture), battling Satan and winning, I become a practical deist or a practicing Gnostic Christian. God has pretty much gone away and left us to our own devices. I have to look elsewhere for answers to the practical questions about politics, anthropology, psychology, etc. As I read recently in a wonderful book, “NOT 10 Suggestions” by Curtis Crenshaw, we become polytheists worshiping the God of the Bible on Sunday and the federal government as our savior the rest of the week. It explains how a Christian can argue for socialism using the Bible.
In summary, I understand your argument. I thought much the same. But it falls short both logically and practically.
Respectfully,
A fellow sojourner
“Actually, most theonomists believe in a two-fold division of the Law – shadows (which image the coming Christ) and the real thing (what is broadly what you call Moral and Civil laws).”
Wow. That is a simpler way of putting it. Thank you Bojidar for the food for thought.