Three Reasons Why I'm Not A Good Calvinist:

As do peadobaptists. BTW what Bunyan lacked in polish he made up for in profundity. I think he belongs in the elite group of theologians. Bunyan did not have a formal theological education, and a lot of people would be shocked to learn that Spurgeon did not have one either. But this fact only highlights their God-given brilliance.

 

LOL, I wondered what the title was all about.

Don't care a whole lot for McArthur, but he's ok I guess, usually don't read theologians, dead or alive, calvinist or not (have a few I've read though, not many), Have never seen the ESV.
Guess we're in the same boat.

 

oh funny:tonofbricks:

 

I was addressing LS. I was saying that Michael Horton's take is (or was) not the same as MacArthur's. That's not the same subject as the doctrine(s)of grace.To clarify,do you hold to a form of Lordship Salvation,though differing from John MacArthur's view in some particulars?

 

"God-given brilliance". I love that line. And I agree with your whole post.

John Owen thought very highly of Bunyan;especially his preaching.Owen was largely responsible for setting JB free from prison and getting Pilgrim's Progress published.

Can you imagine if Bunyan and Whitefield had belonged to the same century? I think they would have been mutual admirers of the other.

 

That's a baby step, at least! :laugh:

I'm sorta convinced that you don't agree with their sotierology as well. But I might be overreaching, eh?

skypair

 

Yeah, kinda highlights Rev Jesse Jackson's "God-given brilliance" that he doesn't have a degree either, doesn't it?! :laugh:

P.S. Not so much a "slap" at Bunyan as a guffaw at how you "enshrine" those who agree with your theology.

skypair

 

Ok, maybe I missed the point of the thread in the beginning and that is why I thought it humorous.

I basicly thought you were saying (so to speak) that since you didn't get the t-shirt, ain't got no bumper sticker, nor a particular bible that you aren't a good Calvinist and therefore you might get shown the door. That is what I saw as funny.

IOW- Your a Calvinist because that is what you have come to understand the scriptures to mean (soveriegn grace doctrines) and though all these other things are being found more commonly in Reformed views, they are just added accessories that appear to be coming a little to import to some. However they are not one of the determining factor(s) to you as to what makes a good Calvinist.

 

Ok, so he is a good Calvinist and a bad reformer. lol Semper Reformanda.

 

TC:

For those who may know to what you refer it is MacArthur's view that James 4:7-10 is an "invitation to salvation...directed at those who are not saved." He views the passage as an evangelistic appeal to the unsaved. This is the article I produced and will appear in the revised version of my book. Summary of Lordship Salvation on a Single Page

The James 4 teaching by MacArthur appears in and is unchanged in all three editions of TGATJ.

Yes, as we all are. I am hopeful that JM will one day, just like he did on his teaching on the eternal sonship of Jesus, realize his error and repent of it and be recovered to a balanced biblical view of the Gospel.

If this were an error on a minor point I and many others would not be dealing with this as we are. The Gospel, however, is no minor doctrine and must be clearly defined and biblically defended from the twin assaults of Lordship Salvation and the Grace Evangelical Society's (Zane Hodges/Bob Wilkin) Crossless gospel.


LM

 

TC:

"Addressing Christians" is the key to the passage. MacArthur, however, insists that this is an invitation to the lost and is the way to get saved, to become a Christian. I am all for instructing Christians on they should live/work out their salvation, but MacArthur converts James 4:7-10 into an evangelistic appeal to the lost.

Thanks for the notes.


Lou

 

Yes, I did and carried on knowing your meaning.

God bless you,


Lou

 

TC,

I posited this on another thread but wanted to pass it by you. I was comparing the Calvinist notion of salvation to the experience of a dog who is taken home by a new master from the animal shelter. Surely this is the same paradigm as Calvinist salvation, no?

1) The dog doesn't choose the master -- the master chooses the dog.

2) It's likely that, at the shelter, all dogs look pretty much alike and the same lack of information cannot influence the prospective owner as to the "merits" of one over another.

3) The dog is "irresistibly drawn" into the relationship. And he doesn't understand how his new master picked him.

4) The dog relies on his master for everything -- "It is all of my master," it thinks. I provide nothing to this relationship except great "tail wags" (worship).

5) Well, I can also do what I am trained to do and can be held responsible to do so "on cue" (LS, discipleship).

6) It's truly a "dog's life!" I wish others could join me here but it would do no good to convince other dogs what a great life I have if my master hasn't "picked" them. Oh, well.

Break it down for me, TC. Do you see any difference between Calvinism's sotierology and a dog's?

skypair

 

All Scripture From TNIV

This has nothing to do with an analogy with a dog.It deals with Israel.

From Ezekiel 16:4-6 :On the day you were born your cord was not cut,nor were you washed with water to make you clean,nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths.No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you.Rather,you were thrown out into the open field,for on the day you were born you were despised.Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood,I said to you,"Live!"

Read the rest of the chapter for context.It was unilateral on the Lord's part.