Featured Is John McCarthur a Calvinist?

No they do not mean all men:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

I underlined the part that is the core of our disagreement. Those things that you say I "know as well as you do" are precisely what I do not believe anymore. I used to when I was a futurist - even an Amill futurist. But I no longer believe that you have these incredible gaps in scripture.

 

All does mean all, God's desire for the wicked the heathens to repent and live.

All will not be saved because they don't see Jesus high and lifted up to heaven to the right side of the Father to be the only way to the Father, they don't come to the knowledge of the truth, and they don't repent and live. I will not water down the scripture, those who do not are not the elect and will not be saved from the wrath to come.

It does not take away the desire of God for the wicked to turn to God through Jesus Christ and repent and live.

We can't wrap our mind around that we are saved for what God has done through Jesus Christ and our responsibility to repent and live, but it doesn't give us the right to chop down a branch of scripture even a twig to mold it into something we can agree with and reconcile together. If we can reconcile scripture then we can mold it into what we want it to be.

 

1 Tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

 

It is always disappointing to see truth rejected by an invention of men.

Scripture say God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But then it is claimed not to be true.

So here is the question, if true, why are not all men saved?
So that question rewrites the verse to read, God desires all men to be saved and come [by the compulsion of irresistible grace]to the knowledge of the truth. Not how it reads.

But if it did read that way, then why are all men not saved. They would be. So Calvinism, having rewritten the verse to create a problem, then rewrites it again to solve the problem.

God desires all [elect] men to be saved and come [by the compulsion of irresistible grace] to the knowledge of the truth.

And since McCarthur rejects that absurd view, it is claimed he is not a Calvinist.

So how do those who actually believe scripture means what it says understand the verse? God desires all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth [according to His purpose and plan.] His plan was to give His one of a kind Son so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish. Jesus taught His disciples and then sent the Helper (Holy Spirit) to inspire them to record the gospel of Christ so that by hearing the word of God we would believe. And those that do believe, in the eyes of God, are set apart in Christ through faith in the truth. But compulsion to believe is not part of the purpose and plan of God.

Bottom line, we can take all of scripture as the final authority for faith and practice without first rewriting it to match a man-made doctrine.

 

With all due respect:

I think the most important thing to note here is that you don't know what Calvinism is.

You can argue whether or not Calvinistic beliefs are consistent with that statement- but if you don't know that MILLIONS of Calvinists through the ages concur with that statement, then you probably don't know enough about this subject to discuss it intelligently.

If you have to ask whether or not John MacArthur is a Calvinist because he made that statement, then there is a TON of reading that you need to do on this subject before you try to make any arguments whatsoever (reading outside of completely unscholarly sources like most IFB/Sword of the Lord type stuff).


I think this is true with most people who oppose Calvinism. They don't know beans from apple butter about what they claim to be opposing.

It would be like me opposing some theory of propulsion in rocket science just because I heard some rather uninformed people make some statements or write some blogs or articles against it.

That's where a lot of folks are on this issue (yes, on both sides no doubt).

 

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

 

Which is what you do with great vehemence.

That simplistic a view of Scripture and hermeneutics means you are totally unqualified to discuss the subject at all.

If you think that it is that simple, then you should not post on this subject at all.

It would be like a child playing with flares in a rocket fuel refinery. He has no business there.

Life is not that simple. Scripture is no where NEAR that simple and to treat it that way is WAY more dangerous than the child with the flares in a refinery.

 

Yeah, John MacArthur is a hard-nose Calvinist.

 

Here is one passage where "all" can only mean "all."

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Romans 11:32)

The same ALL who are bound over to sin, is the same ALL to whom He shows mercy. For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

 

Where was this quote back when I was having this discussion with Glfredrick and others about the desires of God:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=71850

This quote by MacArthur SHOULD silence the accusation that non-Calvinists (like me) believe God is up there trying to effectually save everyone, but just can't because man is too powerful...or that our view makes God a 'failure' because He doesn't get what He desires. At least MacArthur doesn't equate a desire of God going unfulfilled as equal to God's failure.

 

And in this verse it is often attempted to change the meaning of “all” even within the same sentence and after the meaning of "all" has been explained:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
(1Co 15:22)

“All’ die, even the righteous, die, so through Christ “all” these shall be made alive, note it doesn’t say “shall receive” which is what is imposed on the thought to justify separating the meaning of “all” and used to exclude the offer of redemption being offered to all while force fitting the meaning to Calvinism. The prior verse clearly puts down the attempt to change the meaning of “all” as it pertaining to all men:

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
(1Co 15:21)

 

Well said. Calvinists wrongly impose the idea of universalism upon any interpretation which suggests "all" means 'every individual,' but that argument presumes that the God given provision of new life can't be squandered or resisted as people choose to 'trade the truth in for lies,' 'grow hardened,' and 'given over' to their defiled heart after continually rebelling against God's life giving revelation.

The concept of "Irresistible Grace" is the linch pen issue of this debate. By simply removing that imposed doctrine this dilemma of balancing God's Sovereignty and Man's responsibility virtually vanishes.

 

Yes, John McCarthur is a calvinist.

 

Tom is distracting you by speaking about what Jesus actually said. Always a dangerous thing.

Yes, He spoke of seeing. But he limited the "seers" to some, not all.

"Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

Did any of the disciples drop dead between verse 27 and verse 28? Winman's position demands that.

Who is doing the distracting?

 

No, that is my very point. Everything that Peter spoke of had been fulfilled when he spoke in Acts. That was his point. He said "This is that ..."

It was not a partial fulfillment. Peter was using apocalyptic language, something that Christians today - especially here on these boards - never seem to take into account sufficiently.

 

This is why preterists have an uphill battle. Flighty comments like this.

How would you like it if I misrepresented to others what you believe?

 

Do yourself a favor, Winman. Never write a book about Preterism. You have no idea - not even the first clue - about Preterism.

Well, I take that back. It is true that some Preterists (especially in their early stages) fixate to much on AD70, though you falsely accuse me of having the same fixation.

But as far as Preterists avoiding Matt. 10:23, that is likewise quite false. It is actually a good verse to show the weakness in the futurist's view, not the Preterist one.

And as far as our avoiding your Matt 10:23-Damascus connection: It is far-fetched also. How is that a "coming"? Jesus, according to His own words, was present in every way that mattered:

"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"

Jesus was present in the church. Inasmuch as Paul was persecuting them he was persecuting Him. At any rate, there is no sign of a "coming". Or else we have to make every other vision of Christ a "coming" also.

This would make the prophecy in Matt. 10:23 stretched to the point of meaninglessness.

No, this coming of Christ in His Kingdom happened just as He said it would. And, yes, that was AD 70.

Don't embarrass your self by saying "Preterists do this", "Preterists avoid that" etc. The things you imagine are only true in your own imagination