J. Macarthur on John 3:16

There was no making someone reject God. The curse of sin means we are all born in sin and naturally are in rebellion against God by virtue of Adam.

Free will means we can override God's will and choose independently over the ordination of God. Free will makes man co-rulers with God and the final decision maker over God's will.

In that light, human will is never free. We are slaves to sin and, if God chooses to redeem us, we are then bond servants to the King.

 

Who is Matt Chandler?

 

He is one of the most popular Calvinists in the SBC. I cant stand him, nothing to do with Calvinism.

 

Where would you see MacArthur straying from Reformed/Calvinist theology? I read the entire article and I am not sure what distinction you are thinking to be contrary to Reformed/Calvinist theology.

 

Ah...I am not an SBC member, which is why I haven't heard of him.

 

I dont see him straying at all. I see a few on here straying. He sums it up well.
"I am troubled by the tendency of some — often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine — who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.

The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us "God is angry with the wicked every day." It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect. Those who hold this view often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world.

Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world...") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'" "

 

Well, in the absence of specifics I cannot offer a response. I will state that I disagree with many Calvinists on various issues. I disagree with paedobaptist Calvinists over baptism. I disagree with certain Calvinists on supra verses infralapsarianism. I disagree with some Calvinists on eschatology. The point on which most Calvinists are unified is in the area of soteriology, and specifically the doctrines of predestination and election. Then there is the matter of who is really a Calvinist. I do not believe there is such a thing as a four point Calvinist (Amyraldianism). Also, if you are basing Calvinism by what you read on the Baptist Board then you have set a very low bar for yourself.

 

I am not bashing Calvinism at all. As I have said many times, I respect true Calvinistic doctrine. I refer to it as "high Calvinism." I have problems with and see blaring inconsistencies with some of the lower forms of Calvinism. For instance, avoidance of double pre destination.

 

No.
I have not met him yet.I did not make it to the G3 conference last year.
I have never heard him preach live.
In post 9 RM.mentioned Dr. WHITE...I suggested he call in on his talk show.
That is who I was speaking about..
I will go over that article shortly.
Reynolds, why would you imagine I would avoid it?
Have you seen me shy away from any topic?

 

Thank you for another well thought out and informative post.
Along with each point you made often the fact is that each believer is at a different level of growth and maturity .For example, you might have had formal training,or unique experiences that forced you to become proficient in certain portions of scripture.
Others might.not have been used to serve in the same way.
I could walk into any confessional church and blend right in.

 

I think Pink is closer to the scriptural truth.
He agreed with him in his first paragraphs, then suggested Pink went too far.
He the conflates the goodness if God,mt5:45,with the love of God.
That is inconsistent right there.
When he quotes from some of the puritans they speak of God's love of benevolence,not the saving love of God which is only for the elect.

As far as your claim of double predestination, it lacks biblical support.
Logic does not cut it, scripture is the bottom line.
Not one verse speaks of anyone being "predestined " to hell.
The reprobate are ordained to condemnation, the unbelievers are condemned already.
That is why the confession of faith speaks of God passing over, or leaving the unsaved to the judgment of their sins as Jesus told the religious people in jn8:24

 

Ok, then you do not agree with Macarthur 100% on The Doctrines of Grace.
Double Predestination has the same Biblical support of Predestination. It is a sword thst cuts both ways. Denying it plays mere word games. High Calvinists, which are true to Original Calvinism, embrace reprobation.

 

Well....we got our signals crossed.I have never said I have even have met John m.
I promise if I get the opportunity I will take it.
I like John M, have heard dozens of his sermons.
I have some differences with him. Many share my concerns, but the thing is,we are free to have those differences.
The last nationally known person I came close to meeting was Steve Lawson.
I went to the location where he does his bible study,Herbs coffee house in Dallas, but I was there a day early,lol....looked at my calendar wrong..

 

We did have our wires crossed.
The only nationally known preacher I ever met was Creflo Dollar. Stayed in same hotel with him by chance. Not what I expected. Very down to earth. Very humble and likable. No security. No entourage. Just a real nice guy.

 

The devil masquerades as an angel of light...

 

Let me say it this way
On the 5 points...100%
On how that is to be presented,95%
Do you understand the distinction.
John M might communicate much clearer than I do, and I like him as a trusted guide.
With any trusted guide often slight differences are found.
He is responsible for how he serves the Lord ,as you and I are.
I do not have to answer for everything he says.
Another example is CHS.
I have all his printed sermons, and yet I find things occasionally that he took liberties on.
Do I throw out all his sermons? No. I do not have to answer for him.
A.W.Pink for a long period of time sinned in failing to assemble with some local churches. I read his own words, understand why he thought to do it, but think he was mistaken.
Does that mean throw out everything he said?No.
I have noticed often some noncals scurry to and fro,trying to pit one Cal.vs another, looking for different wording.
This is a poor way to seek truth.

 

He is not the devil. Doctrinally different, but not the devil.

 

Name it and claim it, prosperity theology... that's pure false doctrine. I've heard a few of his sermons. Biblically false teaching is not from God.

 

Is it trying to pit Cals against one another or is it simply trying to have a coherent conversation? Example. If John Macarthur embraces double predestination, that is fine. If a Non-Cal says Calvinists embrace D.P. the outcry begins. Why not hold those within your ranks to the same standards you hold those outside your ranks?

 

Not debating his theology, he as a person is far from being the devil. I really do believe he is saved.