John MacArthur vs. the spirits of the Reformation

John MacArthur recently created a small kerfuffle in the Christian corner of the blogosphere with a series of posts admonishing the "Young, Restless, Reformed" crowd for what he perceives as immaturities on their part. Let us first take a moment to ask why a baptist who holds to a dispensational eschatology thinks he is any kind of an authority on what it means to be reformed. Sadly, in the parlance of the broader evangelical community, "reformed" has come to mean merely "believing God is sovereign in salvation." This is sad because at the time of the Protestant Reformation, "believing God is sovereign in salvation" only earned one the label "not a damned heretic." The most cursory glance at the classic Reformed Confessions (the Westminster Standards, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dordt, et al, etc.) would indicate "reformed," properly understood, is a label which includes a great number of things, among which, not incidentally, are the baptizing of the children of Christian parents and not holding to a dispensational eschatology.

When not-damned-heretics such as John MacArthur take upon themselves the label "reformed," they inevitably end up constraining the reformed aspects of their thinking by the baptistic ones. This is evidenced in MacArthur's post "Beer, Bohemianism, and True Christian Liberty."Actually, I sympathize with MacArthur to the extent he is put off by the desperate need of certain young evangelicals to appear hip. While at the moment that need is manifested by beer snobbery, it has existed amongst evangelicals since the founding of the American Republic, and in previous generations spawned the megachurch and, horror of horrors, the aesthetic abomination of "contemporary Christian music."

But as is almost inevitable amongst baptists who prefer abstinence, MacArthur ends up condemning our Lord himself. MacArthur writes, "It is puerile and irresponsible for any pastor to encourage the recreational use of intoxicants—especially in church-sponsored activities." (I'll not comment on that dash.) Consider the implications of MacArthur's statement in light of John 2:9-11.

When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

If John MacArthur, rather than the beloved disciple, had written the Fourth Gospel, no doubt the interpretation of Jesus' decision to give as his first sign an encouragement to use intoxicants recreationally would have been quite different.

I can't stop John MacArthur or the young turks who've been irritating both him and me from using the label "reformed," as the First Amendment still is in force in these United States (for the time being). I can continue to wish, though, that both he and they would become truly reformed and seek to conform their doctrine and practice to the plain teaching of Scripture, rather than adding to, and ultimately contradicting, God's Word.

By way of counterpoint, consider Pa Curmudgeon, pointing out what they're serving at the house of John Knox, a bona fide Reformer.