li0scc0<br><br>You will have to be more specific than that.<br>MacArthur is a big promoter of the doctrines of grace, he is also a fan of CH Spurgeon, who trumpeted the doctrines of grace loudly.<br><br>Tom

MacArthur, and I own the majority of his books and all his commentaries, is a Reformed Calvinist. I know a few people that use to attend his seminary as well and they come out 'reformed' in the baptist and dispensational (Masters own brand of it) sense of the term. Occasionally some of MacArthur's writing and sermons appear to be only 4 point and at other times he appears 5 point. If you speak to him personally he will tell you 5 point, plus--for there is much more to the Reformed faith then just 5 points. <br><br>P.S. I believe someone on this board attends his church and they will be able to add more.

Joe,<br>Thank you for the clarification. I was not clear and I should have stated that Macarthur certainly claims to be 5 point. <br><br>It was remiss of me to bring MacArthur up, because I do not have specific references. I was going simply on an "inkling", and, even if substantiated, I should have waited until I had more info.<br><br>Whether 5 point, 4 point, or 5 point +, I certainly like MacArthur.<br><br>Steve

You did well to use caution. Everything he writes is not 100% ---such as the obvious I already stated, and a few other items--books he had to re-edit. Here is a link to some of his on-line works--pretty substantial: MacArthur (some of these are links to books you must buy, other are links you may read on line).

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The word "most" implies >50%. The major dispensational seminaries are 4 pointers .</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Are we talking about dispensationalists or dispensational seminaries?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Having read about the Canons of Dordt, I would define an Arminian as one who follows the teachings of Arminius. A four point Calvinist would NOT be an Arminian. If you are going to limit calling a Calvinist as to one who holds all five points, then I can limit the definition of an Arminian. :)</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Giving up any of the five points destroys the coherence of the system. As I showed already, one who rejects limited atonement must hold either to universalism or to (Arminian) free-will. If to the former, he maintains consistency but rejects the historic and biblical faith. If to the latter, he must by logical constraint deny total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace.<br><br>

Let me add this about 4 point cal's.<br><br>Way back in Seminary I had a friend who claimed 4pts. However, through discussing the issue he just re-defined the terms. All said and done, he did not even agree with Total Depravity (though he claimed he did). And since then, when I run accross those who claim's 3 or 4 points, I often find the same result. <br><br>Being a Baptist in the deep south, I am sorry to guess that 3/4 of the other ministers that I have the occation to talk even about Perserverence do not even hold this doctrine as stated in the 1689 confession.

Are we talking about dispensationalists or dispensational seminaries?<br><br>Certainly we are talking about Dispensational scholars! Whenever people on this board talk about Covenantalists, they talk about Covenantal scholars. To do otherwise would simply be ridiculous, as we would be going off of hearsay.<br>For example....when I was in a conservative Presbyterian (OPC) church, very few people actually held to 5 points if you pressed them. Many held to one or two points at best. And every PCA church I have worked with is extremely Arminian! BUT, does that mean that most Reformed folks are not really Reformed? Of course not, because when, at this site, we talk about Reformed people, we are really talking about the scholars and the seminaries, aren't we?! <br><br>I bring this up, because I presume that would be your argument, that most Dispensationalists you know are Arminian. Even many of the churches are Arminian. But the scholars and seminaries, in general, aren't....unless we redefine Arminianism as anything but 5 point Calvinism.<br><br>Steve

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Whenever people on this board talk about Covenantalists, they talk about Covenantal scholars.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I haven't seen enough talk of Covenantalists to verify that claim. But I can say that when someone is referred to as a "Calvinist," it doesn't matter whether they are scholars: the term indicates that they adhere to the Five Points. I call myself a Calvinist though I am neither scholar nor seminarian.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Of course not, because when, at this site, we talk about Reformed people, we are really talking about the scholars and the seminaries, aren't we?!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>No. I daresay most of the people who post here are Reformed, and surely not all of them are scholars or seminarians. When we speak of Reformed scholars, writers, theologians, etc., we speak of scholars, writers, and theologians as groups within the Reformed tradition, not definitive of the Reformed tradition. That there are a lot of unreformed individuals attending ostensibly Reformed churches has no bearing. In the same way, when I refer to dispensationalists, I am referring to people who hold to a particular ecclesiology, i.e., that the nation of Israel and the Christian Church are discontinuous entities for whom God has separate plans in salvific history. Most people and churches who hold to this notion, though not all, have basically an Arminian theology.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I bring this up, because I presume that would be your argument, that most Dispensationalists you know are Arminian.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Most I know and most within American evangelicalism are, in fact, Arminian.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]But the scholars and seminaries, in general, aren't....unless we redefine Arminianism as anything but 5 point Calvinism.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I gave a logical explanation before as to why anything but five-point Calvinism essentially ends up either universalist or Arminian. You have yet to address that.