MacArthur's Calvinism

DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE ANOTHER WINNER!!!

 

I agree. That is why on issues such as limited atonement we grant some liberty because there are passages that must be explained. We can even differ to some degree on the perseverance of the saints and exactly what that looks like in practice. However, on issues such as depravity and unconditional election, as Mac indicates, we cannot say they are "less clear." He clearly says that the Bible affirms both. (Number one: Man is totally depraved, no question. Number two: God does choose us to be saved, “Chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.” Right?) They are explicit in Scripture and therefore, we need to be dogmatic on those, as he is to my knowledge.

 

Issue 1:

Man is a sinner -- no question.

Man is necessarily totally depraved as defined in the logical system of Calvinism -- questionable.

Depravity must be defined first and foremost biblically and not philosophically. There is no question humans are sinners. How that sin nature affects their ability to "freely come" or "be drawn" is a mystery.

Issue 2:

We are chosen by God from before the foundation of the world -- no question.

We are chosen by God before the foundation of the world as defined by the Calvinistic understanding of predestination vs foreknowledge -- questionable.

How we are chosen and drawn by God while at the same time the offer of salvation being extended to all is an unexplainable mystery.


Again, Calvinism in and of itself is a philosophical system built primarily upon logic. It has scriptural support for each point, but it is not a paradigm for an overall concept of God's salvific work.

There are elements of salvation, particularly in the areas of sovereignty-freedom, that are unexplainable by any human-created system of thought.

BTW much like MacArthur, I make these points as one whose theology is far more God-centered in its approach. I simply will not fall prey to confining myself to a man-created system (even if it defines itself as God-focused).

 

I am not limiting the value of the atonement, but Jesus Christ never died for any other than those for whom He chose. He laid down His life "for the sheep." It was for their benefit and eternal salvation only.

 

The sufficiency of Christ's atonement is equal to its efficiency, whereas according to your doctrine, the sufficiency is infinitely greater than the efficiency.

 

This doesn't even make sense, my friend. Think about it. If God had decreed to save everyone who ever lived, what would have needed to be offered??? The answer is, Nothing other than what was offered at the cross. If God had decided to save all without exception, then Christ's death was a sufficient payment for that. Your position is neither biblical nor logical. Sufficiency is not equal to efficiency unless Christ's atonement was less than infinite.

 

Primitive Baptist said,

Well sir, You most certainly limit the value of the atonement because you do not understand what it did, does. You limit it, according to your doctrine, to some mysterious "elect". Where-as Scripture says the atonement is for the sins of the world, meaning the whole, totality, complete, world! Jesus' atonement completely levelled the playing field and NO AMOUNT OF SIN, save for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, can keep man from SALVATION! Likewise, NO AMOUNT OF WORKS can earn man salvation! That leaves THE FAITH CONDITION OF THE MAN as the single basis of man's salvation! One either believes, has faith, or one does not believe, has no faith!

The Atonement is for the sins of Mankind, ALL of Mankind! So with sins dealt with by Jesus, and works not a factor for Salvation, the playing field is indeed level because now it is INDIVIDUAL HUMAN FAITH IN GOD, AND IN JESUS by which salvation is given unto man. There is nothing, other than the individual, unique, singular, faith of a man, whereby God determines who gets eternal life. It is "FAITH plus NOTHING ELSE" by which salvation is given to man! John 3:18, Revelation 20:13-15. Those whose names are NOT FOUND in the Lamb's book of Life are cast into the lake of fire. How does ones name get written into the Lambs book of Life? By singular, individual, unique, human faith in Jesus! And ANY man that believeth on Him shall have eternal life.

Those who have faith in Jesus are not judged, all others are judged already by their lack of faith--John 3:18.
Those NOT FOUND in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire--Rev 20:15

Christ's ATONEMENT is EFFICIENT beyond measure, because it includes ALL MANKIND! Salvation is only for those who have faith in God and in Jesus His Son. Satan's demons do not have faith in Jesus or they would not be Satan's. Therefore they will be cast into the lake of fire.

"Efficiency" and "Sufficiency" are measures of man, and not God, for God's Love and Grace are both efficient and sufficient unto man. These terms are merely man's means of determining the value of something, and not God's means.

God told Paul that "His Grace is sufficient for him" Meaning that regardless or what Paul suffered, God's grace was sufficient to take care of Paul. It is the same Grace for ALL mankind. God's Grace is sufficient, Jesus Atonement is sufficient, Efficiency is determined by man's belief. [/b]How can an atonement that covers the sins of the whole world not be efficient?[/b] It is, it does, therefore it is totally efficient!

Your ultra narrow, legalistic, understanding is what is lacking and does not measure up! The Holy Scriptures are not limited to be effective for only "an elect", that no one can identify, but are made available for "whosoever will" read them and take them to heart...that is "hear" them, heed them, live according to them, and have faith in the one who gave them to you. Who ever takes the Scriptures to those who have not heard, are called Apostles. Be an Apostle, making disciples out of all nations, but not with your convoluted doctrine!

Also "His sheep" are the "whosoevers" and "Any who will's". Any, out of all, who hear His voice and follow Him become His sheep! Those who believe in Jesus have their name added to the Lamb's book of life. Those who refuse to hear, even if their names are in the book of life will have their names blotted from the Book of Life, so that come judgment time their names cannot be found in the book and they are cast into the lake of fire.

 

And the standard discussion of total depravity in Calvinism is the biblical definition, not a philosophical one in the least. It is not really a mystery as to how the sin nature affect man's ability to freely come. He is deceived of his own heart (Jer 17:9). Everything thing in his heart is only evil all the time (Gen 6:6). Since coming to God is not an evil inclination, we cannot say biblically that man has any inclination to come to God. Furthermore, because of sin his mind and understanding is darkened (Eph 4:17ff). He is unable to please God (Rom 8:6) and since coming to God would please God, it is clear that he is not even able to come to God. In other words, the only mystery is why some people reject this?? We who are not driven by logic are free to accept the statements of Scripture on this topic.

How can you question that "God chose us from the beginning for salvation" (2 Thess 2:13)?? That is an explicit statement with no legitimate grounds for question. I will admit that your second paragraph finally gets to a mystery. The elect are drawn by God with the effect that they certainly come (John 6:44) but salvation is offered freely to all. Now that is a mystery.

But you have misidentified the system driven by logic. Calvinism is willing to let stand the tension between the free offer of salvation and the scriptural teaching on election. It is the opponents that are driven to figure out how. In so doing, they must deny the clear teaching of unconditional election, that God chose us in him without regard for who we are. I reject that type of "logicalizing" Scripture. We must preach and teach Scripture as it stands. Leave the logical system such as arminianism out. Calvinism is willing to let the tensions stand. It is arminianism that is not.

I fully affirm this. I refuse to fall prey to a man-created system. Fortunately, as a Calvinist, I don't have to. The unfortunate thing is that scriptural truth became associated with a man who is a lightning rod on some issues. We should have just called it biblicism from the beginning because that is what it really is. I am more concerned about the accurate exegesis of Scripture than I am about any so called system, number of points, or the names attached to it. Let's just preach the word faithfully for in it, the gospel, is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.

 

If I were arguing the Calvinistic side of the debate (which I most often am), I would make the same assertions. Since I am not, I will simply say that to suggest that the call to come is legitimate while at the same time proposing that a sinner is unable to come is not a mystery is entering the debate with Geneva colored glasses.

I didn't question it. I said "no question". Whether that election was based upon some form of divine fatalism or whether it was based upon a divine foreknowledge is debatable.

It never ceases to amaze me how many die-hard Calvinists are willing to argue over the fact Calvinism is a philosophical system driven by logic. Calvinism's "willingness to let the tension stand" approach is usually "I am one of the elect and unbelievers are not".

Again, I don't attempt to resolve the tension thru Calvinism nor Arminianism (many of my Arminian friends would get a kick out the fact I was alluded to as an Arminian). I simply allow the Bible to speak. When it says "Come" I believe that call is legitimate. When it says "those who come were called" I believe that is legitimate. It is not Calvinism that resolves the tension. It cannot be resolved. It is simply an undefined mystery that reminds us we are finite and God is infinite.

The moment you identify yourself as a Calvinist, you have fallen into a categorical system. Biblicism is not Calvinism. Calvin took biblical principles and put them into a logical system. As is the case with most theologies, certain texts do not fit in his paradigm, thus it is not biblicism but Calvinism.

How you exegete and preach (and what methods you employ) will often be shaped by your systematic stripe. That is why most die-hard Calvinists have similar views regarding certain pragmatic issues. We love for things to fit in our boxes and anything outside our box must be faulty.

 

Not really. What color are your glasses if I call you to come to dinner at 6:00 tonight even if you can't make it?? There is nothing geneva colored about it. Scripture makes both expreslly clear. We let both stand.

How?? The Bible says that it is based on foreknowledge (Rom 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2). That removes it from the realm of debatability. Divine foreknowledge in Scripture is the loving choice of God as demonstrated by its OT roots and its use in Rom 11:2. How can an explicit statement of Scripture be considered debatable??

I don't see the logic driven issues in Calvinism that aren't present in arminianism or open theism. The truth is that Calvinism is the only of those systems that is willing to let the tensions stand. The other systems sprang from a need to resolve the tension.

I agree, which support my original contention, that Calvinism is willing to let the tensions stand. It is not forced by logic to try to work them out.

Only by necessity. I could sit down each time and explain what I believe about soteriology. That would be long and involved. Or I could just use the name that it usually goes by.

This is in error. If you assemble the biblical teaching on salvation and correlate it together understanding that the Bible does not contradict itself, you end up with what Calvin taught. Long before Calvin taught it, it was taught by Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John. It is simply unfortunate that it got someone else's name. There are certainly logical connections and logical conclusions. That does not mean the system is driven by logic. I think that is faulty thinking on your part. I don't see how you can charge that we are driven by logic when we are willing to let the Scriptures stand as they speak without trying to redefine them.

I have no idea what your personal views are but let's use an illustration. The Bible clearly teaches that we have been chosen to salvation without any merit on our part. Because of the logical priorities of arminians, they refuse to accept that. Therefore, their logic drives them to say that election is conditioned on our choosing him, something that no one is ever willing to support from Scripture. We on the other hand, see the command to preach the gospel without discrimination and we practice that (at least most of us do). We do not see the necessity to figure out how God works in the hearts of people. We simply try to be obedient to his command.

This is true in all respects.

 

Pastor Larry, earlier I said that I cannot believe that you agree with MacArthur's statement. Let me give you two specific quotes against which you have argued vociferously.

The last line is the one I want to highlight but I quoted it in context lest you insinuate that I am misrepresenting what he said. Read it again.

Are you saying that you agree with that statement?

Here is another:

You have gone to great lengths to argue that there is no mediating position between arminianism and calvinism. One MUST be one or the other. How can you not contest this statement by MacArthur?

 

Are you saying that you agree with that statement?</font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely. I just breezed through a few pages in "The Gospel According to Jesus" to refresh my memory about what MacArthur believes. He believes that faith and repentance are the actions of man but that they are gifts of God. If you read his section, I think you will find that you disagree with him, at least based on what I recall you saying here in times past. I am not trying to put words in your mouth at all. Just trying to recall some things about previous conversations.

Calvinism does not believe that man is saved without his faith and repentance. That is an often repeated fallacy that many people use to try to gain traction. It is a straw man. We believe that man must respond in faith and repentance for salvation.

You have gone to great lengths to argue that there is no mediating position between arminianism and calvinism. One MUST be one or the other. How can you not contest this statement by MacArthur? </font>[/QUOTE]I am not sure where you got this one from. I don't see it in the quote above. I would be interested in seeing the context. I, like MacArthur, would prefer to be called a biblical theologian. All Calvinists would. Unfortunately, most people don't know what that means. Having read MacArthur some and having heard him preach a number of times, I don't really question his Calvinism. Rejecting limited atonement does not make one not a Calvinist. However, I do believe he affirms the typical sufficient/efficient distinction. Calvinism in the broad sense is used to describe those who believe that God is sovereign in salvation.

So to the point, I don't disagree with what Mac said though I would have said it differently. I think the problem may be your own understanding in thinking that Calvinism is something that it really is not. I know I have repeated that and I don't mean to sound demeaning to you. Please understand that. My only point is that in your first point above you have repeated a misrepresentation that we have corrected ad nauseum. Yet you seem bent on believing that we would disagree with that statement. We don't. There may be some who would word it differently, and of course the primitives here would disagree but most calvinists would not.

 

WHAT?!?!? Pastor Larry, I did no such thing! I quoted MacArthur and asked you a question. How do you derive from that that I am misrepresenting Calvinism?

But of course man has no faith and cannot repent because he is totally depraved, right? Therefore, man must be regenerated and given the gift of faith so that he can repent and believe. Right? You always suspect that I don't understand calvinism, Pastor Larry. Did I express your position correctly?

 

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" -Hebrews 1:3

Whose sins did Christ purge? At Calvary, the atonement was made, not made available.

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." -Colossians 1:20

For whom did Christ make peace with God? You affirm no more than the Arminians. Even they claim that Christ made it "objectively possible" for every man without exception to be saved.

 

WHAT?!?!? Pastor Larry, I did no such thing! I quoted MacArthur and asked you a question. How do you derive from that that I am misrepresenting Calvinism? </font>[/QUOTE]You seemed surprised that Calvinist's including MacArthur affirm that "God does it and we must be involved." That is a misrepresentation., if indeed you think that is inconsistent with Calvinism.

Right ... But your comments above expressed disbelief that we believe this. You see your comments here only give a part of the story. The faith and repentance given by God are exercised by man. Man is not saved apart from his faith and his repentance.

Therefore, MacArthur's statement that you agreed with is what Calvinism teaches. That was my problem. I do not see how you can agree with Mac's statement based on other things that you have said here. That is fine, I just don't understand it. Then when you express disbelief that Calvinist's believe that man must exercise faith and repentance (which is what Mac said and what you seemed to think I would disagree with), it can only stem from misunderstanding what we believe.

 

You miss the point, PB because you only see part of the picture. Answer this question: If God had decreed to save everyone without exception, what else would have had to be offered??

 

My point is ... if you call knowing I cannot come b/c I am dead, is the call genuine? If Christ says "come" and I cannot come, is the call legitimate. CALVINISM seeks to relieve this tension within its system. Verse A (Come) is interpreted in light of verse B (no one can come unless...). The system demands the two versed be interpreted in that order.

Biblicism allows the two verses to stand independently w/o verse A having to be interpreted IN LIGHT OF verse B. The mystery is how both of these two truths are non-contradictory. Regardless of what you suggest, Calvinism feels the need to explain how the two correspond. The system is part of the explanation.

So you are suggesting there is no genuine foreknowledge - predestination debate???

The explicit statement is that God foreknew and chose. How those terms are defined is debatable (thus the ongoing dialogue for basically all of church history).

I have never argued that there is a system that is not logic driven. My point is that Calvinism is a system designed to answer the questions. It is not error-free (as MacArthur stated in the first quote). It is a man-created system designed to explain divine reality (as all systematic theology is). Because of that, it has weaknesses. It is not perfect. It cannot be equated with biblicism.

But it does try and work them out. Just see your latest discussion on faith and repentance as gifts. That is Calvinism's attempt to work it out. Again, I am not saying I disagree with the conclusions of the system, but I do recognize it is a system that is not without flaw and that Calvinism is not God's explanation of soteriology.

Only if you are reading with previous assumptions. I find it hard to believe a person with no knowledge of the debate could pick up a Bible, read it entirely, and derive the 5 points of Calvinism.

It almost makes me laugh when I hear Calvinists say this. I am not sure whether it should be considered arrogant or a desperate attempt to link a man-created system back to the Early Church.

Here's a challenge for you ... show me the 5 points of Calvinism strictly using the words of Jesus. Here's a greater challenge ... show me the 5 points w/o using John 6.

I am not sure how one could study the life and history of Calvin himself and not believe his system was driven by philosophy and logic. As I have illustrated above, Calvinism does not allow individual Scriptures to stand alone. Verse A has to always be interpreted in light of verse B in the system.

Since I am not an Arminian, I have no desire to defend their positions.

The one statement I highlight above is simply untrue. To suggest that Calvinism does not attempt to "figure out" or explain how God works in the hearts of people is simply misleading. The whole system is an explanation of what Calvinists believe is God's way of converting and keeping sinners.

The more we discuss these things, the further you drift from what MacArthur said and simply display the normal responses of Calvinists who go to all lengths to defend their system.

Calvinism is man's explanation of how he believes God works. It is not God's explanation to man.

 

If God had decreed to save every man without exception, Jesus would have borne every man's sins without exception. For the just penalty that was due unto my sins, Jesus Christ died a substitutionary death. I trust that Jesus Christ was punished on my behalf and that He was made a curse for me. Yet we find over there in Matthew 25 where God will ultimately condemn the unrighteous, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire..." Will any of those for whom Christ was made a curse hear those words at the last day? Will God call any man cursed for whom Christ died? If so, then He did not die a substitutionary death. Jesus died for (on behalf of, in place of) His sheep and no others. I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to get across, but the way I see your doctrine of the atonement is Arminianism. Perhaps I am only seeing part of the picture, whatever that means. God bless you.

 

If MacArthur teaches what Calvinism teaches, then why does MacArthur refer to himself as a "leaky Calvinist"? In MacArthur's response he agrees with one point of Calvinism. Only one point. That one is total depravity. The rest of them he modifies and disagrees with Calvin. I appreciate his honesty in stating his disagreements and hedging on calling himself a calvinist. But you seem to want to have it both ways. You want to call yourself a calvinist and agree with MacArthur who is reluctant to call himself a calvinist. Do you understand why I am confused?

Let me clarify my own comments with regard to MacArthur's statement. I agree with the modifications of Calvinism that he makes (though I would modify them farther). Since I modify them I think it is dishonest to call myself a calvinist, and I don't. In that sense I agree with MacArthur's comments as well.

 

In the end, it really won't matter what MacArthur or Calvin believed. The word of God is what matters, and it is clear that Jesus laid down His life for the sheep, purchased the church of God with His own blood, redeemed us to God, reconciled us to God, and purged our sins by the death of His Son. By one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified!