Calvinism ≠ Reformed

[Mark Quayle]

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.

I'm not sure I understand why you posted that. The question isn't what the passage teaches, but what MacArthur means by what he says about it.

 

[OzSpen]

And did he hold to Covenant Theology?

ms,

Since when did one have to conform to Covenant Theology to be Reformed?

See, "ARMINIUS' CONCEPT OF COVENANT IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT".

Oz

 

[msortwell]

ms,

Since when did one have to conform to Covenant Theology to be Reformed?

See, "ARMINIUS' CONCEPT OF COVENANT IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT".

Oz

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.

It is an opinion widely held by those in the "Reformed" camp.

Beyond that, this thread is objecting to Calvinist Dispensationalists hijacking the label of "reformed" as though it meant nothing more than a soteriology rooted in Calvinism's 5 points.

The staus of Arminius as covenantal or not is very much outside oof the scope of this thread.

 

[OzSpen]

It is an opinion widely held by those in the "Reformed" camp.

Beyond that, this thread is objecting to Calvinist Dispensationalists hijacking the label of "reformed" as though it meant nothing more than a soteriology rooted in Calvinism's 5 points.

The staus of Arminius as covenantal or not is very much outside oof the scope of this thread.

ms,

So is this thread also objecting to my being a Reformed Arminian?

Oz

 

[msortwell]

ms,

So is this thread also objecting to my being a Reformed Arminian?

Oz

Inasmuch as this thread is unrelated to that topic, it involves no related objection.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[Insert link to Facebook group that associates John MacArthur with Reformed theology.]

How can such a group exist? How can someone, interested enough in theology to create such a group, include 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.

So, this Facebook group claims that it adheres to "the five solas, the doctrines of grace, and the core tenets of Reformed theology." Evidently, they believe that the hermeneutical framework which seeks to understand Scripture according to its covenantal structure is not a core tenet of Reformed theology. That's incredible. No one sufficiently informed of theology and church history could maintain that belief.

And anyone who can propose a marriage between the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith needs to deal with the critical arguments of R. Scott Clark who compared and contrasted these confessional standards and illuminated their substantial differences. As Clark said elsewhere, "How is it that those who reject our hermeneutic, who reject our reading of redemptive history (which we learned from Irenaeus), who reject our covenant theology, who reject our sacramental piety and practice, get to define what we are?"

• R. Scott Clark, "1689 vs. the Westminster Confession – Narrowing the Lens on Particular Baptist History," Heidelblog, July 25, 2022.
• _____, "1689 vs. the Westminster Confession – Nature, Grace, and Revelation," July 27, 2022.
• _____, "1689 vs. the Westminster Confession – The Play-By-Play," July 29, 2022.
• _____, "1689 vs. the Westminster Confession – Some of These Things Are Not like the Others," August 15, 2022.
• _____, "1689 vs. the Westminster Confession – One Striking Omission," August 17, 2022.
• _____, "1689 vs. the Westminster Confession – A Tale of Two Confessions," August 19, 2022.
• _____, "1689 vs. the Westminster Confession – On the Fall, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace," August 22, 2022.
• _____, "1689 vs. the Westminster Confession – Of Christ the Mediator," August 24, 2022.

See also:

• Richard Muller, "Why John MacArthur Is Not Reformed," The Riddleblog (ca. 2007). Originally published in the Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 28 (1993): 425-433. Muller demonstrates why people, like MacArthur, who might hold to the "five points" are neither a Calvinist nor Reformed in any meaningful or historical sense of those terms.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Calvinism is purely about soteriology.

I suspect that Calvin himself would be appalled to hear that statement, given his comprehensive views in the Institutes of the Christian Religion (which I thought defined Calvinism).

Exactly what "Reformed" means is difficult to pin down ...

Is it really all that difficult? One need only familiarize himself with the history and tradition of the Reformed churches from the 16th to 19th centuries. (Things started getting weird in the 20th century with Barthian neo-orthodoxy, or with Particular Baptists starting to refer to themselves as "Reformed Baptist.")

A lot of the time it [the term "Reformed"] boils down to five-point Calvinism, though.

It shouldn't, and for Reformed folk it doesn't, because the Canons of Dort (from whence we get the five points) were a response to specific Arminian objections to Reformed theology. In other words, out of all that Reformed theology teaches, they had a problem with these five things. In case that is not clear enough, "Reformed theology" is so much more than those five sticking points.

 

[Fervent]

I suspect that Calvin himself would be appalled to hear that statement, given his comprehensive views in the Institutes of the Christian Religion (which I thought defined Calvinism).

Calvin certainly wrote a lot, but generally when people speak of Calvin they're not speaking of everything in the Institutes but are referring to Calvinist soteriology. Not many who call themselves reformed have read Calvin's institutes, and would likely disagree with a number of theological views Calvin expressed.

Is it really all that difficult? One need only familiarize himself with the history and tradition of the Reformed churches from the 16th to 19th centuries. (Things started getting weird in the 20th century with Barthian neo-orthodoxy, or with Particular Baptists starting to refer to themselves as "Reformed Baptist.")

While there may have been a point at which reformed theology had a tight meaning, it has largely come to be a buzzword divorced from any precision it may have had.

It shouldn't, and for Reformed folk it doesn't, because the Canons of Dort (from whence we get the five points) were a response to specific Arminian objections to Reformed theology. In other words, out of all that Reformed theology teaches, they had a problem with these five things. In case that is not clear enough, "Reformed theology" is so much more than those five sticking points.

My statement is more about whatever modern unity within those who call themselves reformed exists, the distinctive center of which is adherence to a particular soteriological view that is quickly summarized in those 5-points. It's a label that many are quick to apply because it has become so strongly associated with a soteriological dispute.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

... [G]enerally when people speak of Calvin they're not speaking of everything in the Institutes but are referring to Calvinist soteriology.

Yes, and that is exactly the problem, it is being argued (Muller 1993). Apart from the whole of Reformed theology or Calvinism, which includes such critical distinctives as the baptism of children and the identification of sacraments as means of grace, the familiar five points make very little sense (p. 427). By divorcing those five points from the overall patterns of teaching drawn from Scripture and embodied in the confessional standards, you no longer have Calvinism. I mean, there is a reason we baptize children and it's not found anywhere in the mnemonic TULIP. That's sort of critical.

And I still contend that Calvin would be appalled that he was being reduced to those five points.

Not many who call themselves Reformed have read Calvin's Institutes and would likely disagree with a number of theological views Calvin expressed.

Then I believe they have no business calling themselves Reformed or Calvinists (and they probably couldn't mount an argument for why they do). It is rather like someone denying the deity of Jesus whilst calling himself a Christian. It's like, "I see what you're trying to do there but I'm telling you it can't work."

The example Muller used was illustrative (pp. 425-426; emphasis mine):

I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a "five-point Calvinist." I later learned that in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely "ordinances" of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ's second coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. ... This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of "born again" adults who had "a personal relationship with Jesus."

In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister (although at the time I was astonished). After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of "Calvinism" at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches ... He was, in short, an American evangelical.​

While there may have been a point at which Reformed theology had a tight meaning, it has largely come to be a buzzword divorced from any precision it may have had.

Indeed. That is precisely what I said, but reaffirmed here in your own words.

It isn't difficult to pin down what "Reformed" means, I suggested, if one just familiarizes himself with the history and tradition of the Reformed churches from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. It's like, okay, that's what "Reformed" means. Got it. Why would any serious person give more weight to the last 75 years than to the preceding 400 years? That's a bit like governing the meaning of these six Bible passages which speak clearly on a matter by what this one ambiguous passage says. That's just backwards. If what you believe significantly contradicts the confessional standards of Presbyterian and Reformed covenanting communities, then what you believe is not Reformed.

[The distinctive center of the unity that exists among those who call themselves Reformed is their] adherence to a particular soteriological view that is quickly summarized in those five points.

I disagree. I think the distinctive center is covenant theology. Christology, soteriology, eschatology, hamartiology and so on, they're all organized, interpreted, and understood in light of covenant theology—which is not even acknowledged in the five points.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, and that is exactly the problem, it is being argued (Muller 1993). Apart from the whole of Reformed theology or Calvinism, which includes such critical distinctives as the baptism of children and the identification of sacraments as means of grace, the familiar five points make very little sense (p. 427). By divorcing those five points from the overall patterns of teaching drawn from Scripture and embodied in the confessional standards, you no longer have Calvinism. I mean, there is a reason we baptize children and it's not found anywhere in the mnemonic TULIP. That's sort of critical.

And I still contend that Calvin would be appalled that he was being reduced to those five points.




Then I believe they have no business calling themselves Reformed or Calvinists (and they probably couldn't mount an argument for why they do). It is rather like someone denying the deity of Jesus whilst calling himself a Christian. It's like, "I see what you're trying to do there but I'm telling you it can't work."

The example Muller used was illustrative (pp. 425-426; emphasis mine):

I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a "five-point Calvinist." I later learned that in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely "ordinances" of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ's second coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. ... This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of "born again" adults who had "a personal relationship with Jesus."

In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister (although at the time I was astonished). After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of "Calvinism" at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches ... He was, in short, an American evangelical.​

Indeed. That is precisely what I said, but reaffirmed here in your own words.

It isn't difficult to pin down what "Reformed" means, I suggested, if one just familiarizes himself with the history and tradition of the Reformed churches from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. It's like, okay, that's what "Reformed" means. Got it. Why would any serious person give more weight to the last 75 years than to the preceding 400 years? That's a bit like governing the meaning of these six Bible passages which speak clearly on a matter by what this one ambiguous passage says. That's just backwards. If what you believe significantly contradicts the confessional standards of Presbyterian and Reformed covenanting communities, then what you believe is not Reformed.




I disagree. I think the distinctive center is covenant theology. Christology, soteriology, eschatology, hamartiology and so on, they're all organized, interpreted, and understood in light of covenant theology—which is not even acknowledged in the five points.

Reformed Theology and Calvinism have always seemed to me pretty much one and the same, though I have seen a different focus or personality to the one as opposed to the other.

Formal Covenant Theology, I take it then, is more important than I have realized. I have not done much more than a surface look at it, though I'm probably more aware of the mindset behind it than I realize. I have a definite distaste for Dispensationalism, which I was taught early on.

But the only reason I consider myself Reformed (or Calvinist) is because I more closely identify with them theologically than with any other denomination. I came to believe what I do about God, sin, salvation and sanctification through years of frustration trying to make sense of the semi-Arminianism I grew up in. (I didn't even know it was Calvinism/Reformed I had come to believe, until I read some of the old reformers —John Owen is my favorite— and talked to some Reformed believers.)

At this point, I'm guessing Covenant Theology at least includes such notions as that God is the instigator/author and keeper of the Covenants, and that he made them entirely for his own purposes, even irrespective of the faithfulness of the elect, (as Job said, that it was not because of sin that God had struck him, but that God does what God does (my description, not Job's words), and later God says that Job was the only one in the group that had said the truth about him). I assume they are sequentially timed, of course, not overlapping. I expect also that Covenant Theology will help me understand why some Reformed look at such passages as Romans 5, particularly verse 13, the way they do, with the focus they do.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, and that is exactly the problem, it is being argued (Muller 1993). Apart from the whole of Reformed theology or Calvinism, which includes such critical distinctives as the baptism of children and the identification of sacraments as means of grace, the familiar five points make very little sense (p. 427). By divorcing those five points from the overall patterns of teaching drawn from Scripture and embodied in the confessional standards, you no longer have Calvinism. I mean, there is a reason we baptize children and it's not found anywhere in the mnemonic TULIP. That's sort of critical.

And I still contend that Calvin would be appalled that he was being reduced to those five points.




Then I believe they have no business calling themselves Reformed or Calvinists (and they probably couldn't mount an argument for why they do). It is rather like someone denying the deity of Jesus whilst calling himself a Christian. It's like, "I see what you're trying to do there but I'm telling you it can't work."

The example Muller used was illustrative (pp. 425-426; emphasis mine):

I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a "five-point Calvinist." I later learned that in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely "ordinances" of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ's second coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. ... This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of "born again" adults who had "a personal relationship with Jesus."

In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister (although at the time I was astonished). After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of "Calvinism" at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches ... He was, in short, an American evangelical.​

Indeed. That is precisely what I said, but reaffirmed here in your own words.

It isn't difficult to pin down what "Reformed" means, I suggested, if one just familiarizes himself with the history and tradition of the Reformed churches from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. It's like, okay, that's what "Reformed" means. Got it. Why would any serious person give more weight to the last 75 years than to the preceding 400 years? That's a bit like governing the meaning of these six Bible passages which speak clearly on a matter by what this one ambiguous passage says. That's just backwards. If what you believe significantly contradicts the confessional standards of Presbyterian and Reformed covenanting communities, then what you believe is not Reformed.




I disagree. I think the distinctive center is covenant theology. Christology, soteriology, eschatology, hamartiology and so on, they're all organized, interpreted, and understood in light of covenant theology—which is not even acknowledged in the five points.

I'm going to keep this short since I'm not really invested in the discussion. It's not that the last 70 years are preferred to the previous 400, but a reality that the meaning of words changes over time and by usage. Denying that is simply denying reality, and we can only reference current usage of a word. How it was used 100 years ago makes no difference if the primary modern usage has changed, no amount of argumentation or resistance changes the dynamics of language.

 

[msortwell]

I'm going to keep this short since I'm not really invested in the discussion.

I am very much invested in the topic. It is not appropriate to misrepresent one’s theology by adopting a label that borders upon antithetical to the doctrine that one actually holds.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Reformed theology and Calvinism have always seemed to me pretty much one and the same, though I have seen a different focus or personality to the one as opposed to the other.

For all intents and purposes, they are synonymous, in my opinion. But there are differences that start to emerge when you focus more narrowly on certain doctrines, when you start splitting hairs (as we love to do), differences between Calvin and Zwingli and Turretin and Beza, etc., from the Lord's supper to infralapsarianism and what have you. But, standing back, taking in the Reformers and Puritans as a whole, they are pretty much one and the same, yeah.

Formal covenant theology, I take it, is more important than I have realized. I have not done much more than a surface look at it, though I'm probably more aware of the mindset behind it than I realize.

I genuinely believe it's crucial, yeah. See also chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The doctrine of the covenant was one of the theological contributions that came to the church through the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Undeveloped earlier, it made its appearance in the writings of Zwingli and Bullinger, who were driven to the subject by Anabaptists in and around Zurich. From them it passed to Calvin and other Reformers, was further developed by their successors, and played a dominant role in much Reformed theology of the seventeenth century when it came to be known as covenant or federal theology. Covenant theology sees the relation of God to mankind as a compact which God established as a reflection of the relationship existing between the three persons of the Holy Trinity. … Among its early and most influential advocates were, besides Zwingli and Bullinger, Olevianus (Concerning the Nature of the Covenant of Grace Between God and the Elect, 1585), Cocceius (Doctrine of the Covenant and Testaments of God, 1648), and Witsius (The Oeconomy of the Covenants, 1685).​

– M. Eugene Osterhaven, "Covenant theology," in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 279.

I can recommend some good books. For example,

• Beginner: C. Matthew McMahon, Covenant Theology Made Easy (Coconut Creek, FL: Puritan Publications, 2011).
  
• Intermediate: Michael Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006).
  
• Advanced: Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether, eds., Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).

At this point, I'm guessing that covenant theology at least includes such notions as that God is the instigator/author and keeper of the covenants, and that he made them entirely for his own purposes, even irrespective of the faithfulness of the elect, ...

More or less, yeah. And, mind you, it all starts with the covenant of redemption (Latin pactum salutis or foedus redemptionis), which speaks to the intratrinitarian agreement before the foundation of the world "concerning the covenant of grace and its ratification in and through the work of the Son incarnate."

The roots of this idea, of an eternal intratrinitarian pactum, are clearly present in sixteenth-century Reformed thought, but the terminology came to prominence and became fixed only in the third and fourth decades of the seventeenth century in the work of such thinkers as Edward Fisher, Peter Bulkeley, John Owen, David Dickson, Johannes Cloppenburg, and Johannes Cocceius. ... The intention of the pactum salutis is to emphasize the eternal, inviolable, and trinitarian foundation of the temporal foedus gratiae [covenant of grace], much in the way that the eternal decree underlies and guarantees the ordo salutis. The biblical foundations of the doctrine vary among its exponents, yet arguably the central texts are the Pauline Adam–Christ parallels in relation to the understanding of legal and evangelical covenants, together with various messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. ... Christ is party with God in the pactum salutis and, on grounds of the pactum, believers are parties with God in the foedus gratiae as made possible by the work of Christ and union with him.​

– Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), s.v. "Pactum salutis."

According to covenant theology, the covenant of grace, established in history, is founded on still another covenant, the covenant of redemption, which is defined as the eternal pact between God the Father and God the Son concerning the salvation of mankind. Scripture teaches that within the Godhead there are three persons, the same in essence, glory, and power, objective to each other. The Father loves the Son, commissions him, gives him a people, the right to judge, and authority over all mankind (Jn 3:16; 5:20, 22, 36; 10:17-18; 17:2, 4, 6, 9, 24; Ps. 2:7-8; Heb 1:8-13); the Son loves the Father, delights to do his will, and has shared his glory forever (Heb 10:7; Jn 5:19; 17:5). ... On this [trinitarian] foundation, covenant theology affirms that [the Godhead] covenanted together for the redemption of the human race, ...​

– Osterhaven, "Covenant theology," in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 279-280.

I expect also that Covenant Theology will help me understand why some Reformed look at such passages as Romans 5, particularly verse 13, the way they do, with the focus they do.

Absolutely.

 

[JAL]

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

I'm certainly not Reformed/Calvinist if such is understood to connote absolute sovereignty and/or double-predestination. Yet I do hold firmly to a monergistic election. (Long story).

Anyway, I wonder if you'd consider me dispensational. I hold to Covenant Theology. Well I'm not an expert on the official tenets of that doctrine but at least I hold to my own version of it. Meaning, there is one Covenant of Grace, most clearly articulated in Galatians 3, for OT and NT saints alike, involving salvation by faith alone. I make no distinctions at all between OT and NT saints. The essential content of saving faith hasn't changed. NT saints might be privy to some new information, but nothing definitive of saving faith - just supplemental information.

HOWEVER, I do believe that national Israel is God's elect, since no other reading of Romans 11 has sounded convincing to me. On that point I part with Covenant Theology. (I mean, if God can elect individuals, why not a whole race of them?). By the way, Romans 9:6 means something very different to me than it does to you.

Anyway, does my preservation of Israel make me a dispensationalist in your view? I fail to see how this specific tenet of mine disqualifies me from the main thrust of Covenant Theology.

 

[atpollard]

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

Two Words: "Reformed Baptist"

 

[msortwell]

Two Words: "Reformed Baptist"

Gonna need more words, if I’m going to understand your point.

 

[returntosender]

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

Sussed?

 

[atpollard]

Gonna need more words, if I’m going to understand your point.

Since clicking the link proved difficult for you, here is what you would have found at the other end …

“Reformed Baptists (sometimes known as Particular Baptists or Calvinistic Baptists)[1] are Baptists that hold to a Calvinist soteriology (salvation).[2] They can trace their history through the early modern Particular Baptists of England. The first Calvinist Baptist church was formed in the 1630s.[1] The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith was written along Calvinist Baptist lines.[1]The name “Reformed Baptist” dates from the latter part of the 20th Century to denote Baptists who have adopted elements of Reformed theology, but retained Baptist ecclesiology.”
​

Reformed Baptists are “Reformed”.
Reformed Baptists are “Baptists”.
Baptists are not “covenant” … we are Credobaptist by definition, which is a rejection of Covenant Theology and its Paedobaptism.

QED.
The claim “Those of the Reformed camp will hold to a form of Covenant Thelology” is not universally true.

 

[John Owen]

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.

Well not necessarily. There are Reformed Baptist Churches. Many people believe that Calvinism is correct, but that infant baptism is not, so they call themselves Reformed Baptists. Kind of like Johnny Mac.

 

[returntosender]

Sussed?

I make you laugh far to much mark