124: Reformed Dispensationalsm? (Responding to Matthew Johnston)

Jeremy responds to Matthew Johnston, who, with Mike Riccardi and Peter Sammons, launched the "Reformed Dispensationalism" movement over the past couple of years. Jeremy is particularly responding to one of Johnston's sermons in which he advocates for the Reformed doctrine of the active obedience of Christ based on the Covenant of Works.

Contact Us:

Subscribe to the podcast:

0:00 Introduction
1:39 Combining Opposing Terms
3:49 My Experience with the Movement
16:48 Matthew Johnston Sermon Intro
20:56 Context of the Sermon
23:54 Covenant of Works Language
38:48 Covenant of Redemption Language
41:18 Active Obedience of Christ
49:25 Gospel Issue?
50:47 Imputed Righteousness
1:04:11 Conclusion

[biblicalworldview]

I agree with you that Jesus did so much more than keep the law. He never sinned. People kept the law to the letter, but they still sin because they did not keep it in their hearts. The story of the rich young ruler is a good example. Also the Pharisees are a great example. Jesus was absolutely perfect in every way.

[cameronjdecou]

Thank you for the review. I haven’t heard of this new theological movement. I used to think that I could find a via media for covenant theology and dispensationalism but the more I have studied both systems I have realized that this is impossible. Some of the problem here seems to be wanting to use that term “reformed.”

I think it was Nick Campbell over at Christ is the Cure who has helpfully delineated what it means to be “Reformed” - Confessional (1689 or Westminster), Calvinistic, and Covenantal. Of those three distinctives, I think Calvinism is the only one which can be “married” to dispensationalism - as MacArthur and Company have done - since the reformed confessions of faith are more strongly yoked to covenant theology than they are with Calvinism. Very interesting topic and I look forward to your interview with your guest!

[Sgomes-isor]

The more i know on covenantalism the less i agree with reformed theology. Seems like works do play a really strong part to the system.

[danielwarton]

Thank you for that. I came into it expecting to disagree with you. I’m very dispensational, of the MacArthur variety, but I did think you’re right and I’m very grateful for the show.
I definitely need to learn more and thin my further

[jburghau]

Thank you for this video. It was very helpful. I would like to point out that John MacArthur does seem to hold to the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ as seen in his introduction to the Spring 2021 issue of The Masters Seminary Journal. He may not hold to the covenant of works, but what are your thoughts? Please continue with your videos. Thank you.

[gageterrell]

"Jesus' death and resurrection wasn't enough to save us" ... Smh

[michaellorusso]

So, speaking of hermeneutics, what do you make of Bock’s understanding of sensus plenior? Sounds a lot like Moo… (see p.112 ff. In Three Views of the Nee Testament Use of the Old Testament).

Just to lay my cards on the table, I’m a reformed progressive dispensationalist. I hold to the covenant of redemption, covenant of works and a covenant of grace (of sorts) I’ve never understood why these were considered off limits to dispensationalist. Chafer held to a covenant with Adam and S. Lewis Johnson also held to the theological covenants and was a reformed dispensationalist.

[manonthestars]

How is dispensationalism not a theological structure, a systematic that is also used to interpret scripture. Its not just Reformed Theologians that do this. One can't separate biblical theology and systematic theology. They are both related subjects that assume one another. Ppl can be unbalanced and overemphasize one over the other which is a problem. But second you start interpreting any single text you doing it within a system. Even the first verse of the Bible, when it says "God" you have a systematic theology of what the word God references his attributes and how that God communicates with language to creatures, u also assume acceptance or denial of inerrancy and on and on. You can't escape it.

So when dispensationalist keep on emphasizing they start with a text, and focus on hermeneutics first, that is a rose-colored glasses and not true in reality or practice.

No different than when any person (heretic, heterodox or just a different denomination) with a different position acts like their view is the most clearest view in the Bible. And the only difference between their "correct view" and other false views is they're "just reading the text for what it is clear and as intended, and the other people are introducing there systems to it.

[TheCastleKeeper]

It's been around for a LONG time. Shepard's Seminary is a Reformed Dispensational Seminary. Dr. Vloch, Dr. Geoman, Dr. Bookman, Abner Chou at Masters, all call themselves Reformed Dispensationalist. So your a bit off focusing on this new guy on X, when the development has been around since the mid-90s.