A question about John MacArthur...

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I find John MacArthur Jr., IF he believes now as he did when he wrote “The Gospel According to Jesus” a most inconsistent and confused man. I appreciate his desire to see Christians make Christ Lord of their lives, bu the way he goes about it is in reverse osmosis.

In the preface of his book he tries to portray himself as ‘orthodox’ Calvinistic by stating, “ Salvation is by God’s grace sovereign grace and grace alone. …..Nothing a degenerate, spiritually dead sinner can do will in any way contribute to salvation……..Saving faith, repentance, commitment, and obedience are all Divine works, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the heart of everyone who is saved.”

He then goes about to depict the deficiencies in the ‘easy-believism’ gospel as if though he detest it. What in the world makes any difference whether or not you just believe, or if in fact one yields themselves to the ‘Lordship of Christ’ if it is all of God??? He lays the foundation of the easy believism gospel in his preface and then tries to establish ‘Lordship salvation’ from the very roots of easy believism.

If John desires to see any results in changing ones mind as to the necessity of Lordship salvation, the first thing they will have to do is recognize the fallacy and believe despite his opening preface. To put it bluntly, a condition of the effectiveness of his book will be measured in lockstep with the inconsistency one develops to his preface.

 

[Marcia]

Does "Lordship Salvation" basically sum up what Calvinism is all about? I guess than that all true Christians who know better are Calvinists at heart, for who wouldn't want Jesus as the Lord of their life?

I am not a Calvinist nor do I believe in "Lordship salvation," but I like MacArthur's teaching. I use his NASB study Bible and find the notes very helpful.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: I am not a Calvinist nor do I believe in "Lordship salvation," but I like MacArthur's teaching. I use his NASB study Bible and find the notes very helpful.

HP: What is your understanding of Lordship salvation? You say you are not a Calvinist. Do you find yourself in agreement to the statements John made in the preface of his book I quoted from?

 

[Eric B]

What in the world makes any difference whether or not you just believe, or if in fact one yields themselves to the ‘Lordship of Christ’ if it is all of God???

Because if you don't; then it turns out you were not elect to begin with. I have listened to him, (along withthe TV Bible study show "Word Pictures" which includes series such as "A Workman Approved By God", produced by Mark Kielar of "Cross TV" ministries, which may be associated with MacArthur) and yes, it at times ironically sounds for all purposes like works-righteousness, only crediting God for the saving works-er-"fruits".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eric B: Because if you don't; then it turns out you were not elect to begin with.

HP: If it is all of God, and you find out you were not elect, what were you supposed to do????? Overcome necessitated fatalism designed and orchestrated by Omnipotence???? If you are not elected, under MacAarthur’s Calvinistic scheme no one is to be blamed other than God, and nothing you have done, could do, or will do could change one iota of anything destined and designed by God to come to pass.

 

[Chris L.]

HP: If it is all of God, and you find out you were not elect, what were you supposed to do????? Overcome necessitated fatalism designed and orchestrated by Omnipotence???? If you are not elected, under MacAarthur’s Calvinistic scheme no one is to be blamed other than God, and nothing you have done, could do, or will do could change one iota of anything destined and designed by God to come to pass.

I agree with you here. A big problem I have with Calvinism is that if God is totally sovreign and there is nothing anybody can do to influence him then why even pray? Praying as the Bible teaches would indicate that one might possibly influence God to answer prayer in yours or someones elses favor.

Look at the story of Sodom & Gomorrah. God told Lot that if he found a certain amount of good people in those towns that he would not destroy them, and he gave Lot numerous chances. Obviously if they were already predestined to be destroyed he wouldn't have told Lot anything except to get out. I believe God knew ahead of time that Sodom & Gomorrah would fall, but may have not necessarily predestined them to be destroyed.

 

[Rippon]

John MacArthur is a wonderful Bible expositer . The Lord has gifted him with tremendous teaching abilities . I have my disagreements with aspects of his material , but overall we should be appreciative that the Lord has raised up such a man in this generation . He is certainly not out for money . And it is ridiculous to even think he doesn't have a burden for souls .

While in the States I valued his Grace To You broadcasts very much . His very clear scripturally based messages came through so plainly . They were in stark contrast with what most of the professing Christian public thought was good preaching .

He is no Charles Spurgeon ( though born almost 100 years after the Prince of Preachers ) , who is ? But MacArthur's ministry is solid and sound . He is a joy to listen to on the Larry King Show when paired up against the likes of D. Chopra ( sp?) . He has been an encouragement to me .

 

[Chris L.]

John MacArthur is a wonderful Bible expositer.The Lord has gifted him with tremendous teaching abilities .

I absolutely agree.

... And it is ridiculous to even think he doesn't have a burden for souls .

It's not ridiculous to question that. No man is beyond scrutiny. I've never heard the man say much in the way of winning souls for Christ. If he's a Calvinist, and I have my suspicions, then he believes that all saved men were pre-elected by God, thus no need for any strong soulwinning. I'm just trying to figure out where the man stands exactly. If he only leans towards Calvinism, then he's ok with me. If he's a full blown Calvinist, then I have a problem with him. I've never actually heard the man state exactly where he and his church stands.

I don't believe there is such thing as a neutral or non-denominational Christian or church. Everybody leans towards some kind of doctrine, belief, etc.

While in the States I valued his Grace To You broadcasts very much . His very clear scripturally based messages came through so plainly . They were in stark contrast with what most of the professing Christian public thought was good preaching .

He is no Charles Spurgeon ( though born almost 100 years after the Prince of Preachers ) , who is ? But MacArthur's ministry is solid and sound . He is a joy to listen to on the Larry King Show when paired up against the likes of D. Chopra ( sp?) . He has been an encouragement to me.

He's been an encouragement in many ways for me too. and I hope I can continue to learn from him with a clear conscience.

 

[Eric B]

I agree with you here. A big problem I have with Calvinism is that if God is totally sovreign and there is nothing anybody can do to influence him then why even pray? Praying as the Bible teaches would indicate that one might possibly influence God to answer prayer in yours or someones elses favor.

This is the way to explain it I have gathered from the debates here years ago:
It is an obvious criticism that Calvinism seems to render prayer futile since everything is predetermined by God, but they actually claim that it is only in their system that prayer has meaning, and is futile if God does not override a person's free will. In Calvinism, supposedly, God is "free" to answer a person's prayer to save someone, which involves changing his will, (which is only inclined to unbelief).
To get a better idea of the world of "God's sovereignty and man's responsibility" as the Calvinists seem to be pointing to, just think of a TV show or play. One person kills another, and the killer "really" is "guilty" and "responsible" for a "free choice", even though the fictional character could not have done other than what was written. For "guilt", "responsibility" and "choice" are determined by the rules of the outside world, where the writers and directors dwell, and everybody watching will say "yes, that 'person'[character] really is guilty"! The only difference is that this "script" is now "real life", and the characters, real souls. So basically, you could think of it as God has written a story of a world where the future is open, and in the story people have choice and if they believe the Gospel they are saved. But God is really the one who wrote everything that happens, as well as the means for it happening. So one Christian prays for God to save some people he knew of who he couldn't reach. God listened to him and then sends two other Christians their way. The first obeyed and shared the Gospel with two of the people, saying "...IF you receive Christ, you will be saved; if not, you will be lost...". It appears either has a choice, but that is only in the story. So one accepts Christ, the other doesn't. Another Christian doesn't obey, and passes another person without sharing the Gospel. That person dies without Christ. In reality, God had decreed from eternity that the first person was elect, and He scripted him into the world as the first person witnessed to, while the others were the "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction", who are punished for their "free choice" of rejecting God. That was all they could do, given their inability, but in the story, it was "freely" made, so they are now punished eternally for it. Also in the story, God had effectively responded "yes" to the prayer for the first person. But in reality, this was simply the "means" He used to accomplish in time what He had decreed from eternity (the others were an automatic "no" since they were not "elect"). The obedient Christians were thus "used by God" to bring one of His "sheep" "into the fold". God could have done it without them, but in this story, He wants people to be saved after responding to the Gospel, even though it is by his election rather than their response. The disobedient Christian was not used of God to win anyone, and will answer to God for that, but the person he neglected to witness to was not decreed to be elect anyway.

 

[Chris L.]

This is the way to explain it I have gathered from the debates here years ago:
It is an obvious criticism that Calvinism seems to render prayer futile since everything is predetermined by God, but they actually claim that it is only in their system that prayer has meaning, and is futile if God does not override a person's free will. In Calvinism, supposedly, God is "free" to answer a person's prayer to save someone, which involves changing his will, (which is only inclined to unbelief).
To get a better idea of the world of "God's sovereignty and man's responsibility" as the Calvinists seem to be pointing to, just think of a TV show or play. One person kills another, and the killer "really" is "guilty" and "responsible" for a "free choice", even though the fictional character could not have done other than what was written. For "guilt", "responsibility" and "choice" are determined by the rules of the outside world, where the writers and directors dwell, and everybody watching will say "yes, that 'person'[character] really is guilty"! The only difference is that this "script" is now "real life", and the characters, real souls. So basically, you could think of it as God has written a story of a world where the future is open, and in the story people have choice and if they believe the Gospel they are saved. But God is really the one who wrote everything that happens, as well as the means for it happening. So one Christian prays for God to save some people he knew of who he couldn't reach. God listened to him and then sends two other Christians their way. The first obeyed and shared the Gospel with two of the people, saying "...IF you receive Christ, you will be saved; if not, you will be lost...". It appears either has a choice, but that is only in the story. So one accepts Christ, the other doesn't. Another Christian doesn't obey, and passes another person without sharing the Gospel. That person dies without Christ. In reality, God had decreed from eternity that the first person was elect, and He scripted him into the world as the first person witnessed to, while the others were the "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction", who are punished for their "free choice" of rejecting God. That was all they could do, given their inability, but in the story, it was "freely" made, so they are now punished eternally for it. Also in the story, God had effectively responded "yes" to the prayer for the first person. But in reality, this was simply the "means" He used to accomplish in time what He had decreed from eternity (the others were an automatic "no" since they were not "elect"). The obedient Christians were thus "used by God" to bring one of His "sheep" "into the fold". God could have done it without them, but in this story, He wants people to be saved after responding to the Gospel, even though it is by his election rather than their response. The disobedient Christian was not used of God to win anyone, and will answer to God for that, but the person he neglected to witness to was not decreed to be elect anyway.

I'm sorry sir, I don't buy into this Calvinistic rationalization at all, but thanks for trying. If the "unused" human beings from "the story" were simply destroyed in the judgement, Calvinism would make a lot more sense, but Calvinism doesn't teach that does it? At least John MacArthur doesn't. We are talking about people being condemned to eternal hellfire here. This is serious! This is not a movie script or a game. There would be no need for soulwinning, or even a gospel for that matter if Calvinism were true. The elect would simply find their own way to God.

Another problem I have with Calvinism is that it might eventually lead a person to become overly confident, presumptuous, haughty and think of themselves as superior to everyone else. After all, they ARE the elect right? But one may say that Calvinism teaches that it was through no part or effort on behalf of the person, and only through the irresistable grace of God, but there had to be SOME reason why they were chosen right? Did God just do an eneey-meeny-miney-moe and just randomly select a person? I think not. Can you understand how one of the "elect" who strongly believes in Calvinism might not be able to help from thinking this way? Pride is a terrible sin.

I believe those presented with the Gospel do have a choice for Jesus, I don't know about those the Gospel never reaches, perhaps they are the ones who were "fitted for destruction", but the ones who knowingly reject Christ's sacrifice may pay a much higher price at the coming judgement. ???

 

[billwald]

"Soulwinner" is a perverted concept. The Holy Spirit regenerates souls. We are to tell the good news and make disciples. Disciples are student/learners.

 

[J. Jump]

"Soulwinner" is a perverted concept.

Bill I would agree with you in that "soulwinner" today is not used in a Biblical sense, but "soulwinner" is probably an okay term if used correctly.

When people today speak of "soulwinner" today they are thinking of eternal salvation issues, but the soul is not even in play in regard to eternal salvation issues. It is the spirit that is dead and made alive at the moment of eternal salvation.

The winning or losing of a soul comes only after that point. And men are involved in that process.

James 5:20 says - let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

So maybe it shouldn't be soulwinner, but soulsaver?

 

[Eric B]

I'm sorry sir, I don't buy into this Calvinistic rationalization at all, but thanks for trying.

I'm not a Calvinist. That was from my page challenging the doctrine, even. Calvinist upfront may even deny that as a "misrepresentation", but that is the best way to explain what they have articulated.

If the "unused" human beings from "the story" were simply destroyed in the judgement, Calvinism would make a lot more sense, but Calvinism doesn't teach that does it? At least John MacArthur doesn't. We are talking about people being condemned to eternal hellfire here. This is serious! This is not a movie script or a game.

I agree, but then they claim we can't comprehend or question God's wisdom, like that anyway.

There would be no need for soulwinning, or even a gospel for that matter if Calvinism were true. The elect would simply find their own way to God.

But God uses us in the "script" to do it, and if we don't do it, the people who then perish were sinmply nonelect.

 

[Marcia]

HP: What is your understanding of Lordship salvation? You say you are not a Calvinist. Do you find yourself in agreement to the statements John made in the preface of his book I quoted from?

My understanding of Lordship salvation (which could be wrong) is that at the point of salvation, the person must recognize Jesus as the Lord of their life - this is interpreted as meaning that the person must at that moment consciously surrender all areas of their life to Jesus. I do not think all new believers understand this concept, which I think comes with sanctification. I know I did not have this concept when I was saved. I knew Jesus was the savior who had died for my sins and I needed to trust in Him to be reconciled to God. As time went by, I understood better the concept of surrendering all areas of my life to Jesus, a process that is still going on with me and will continue on earth.

Have to look at the statements you posted. I don't recall them.

 

[Marcia]

HP, there are not much quotes in your post from MacArthur. I would have to read it myself to comment and I can tell you that that is not happening anytime soon. I have too much else to read.

I probably should have said I like MacArthur's teachings on the radio (what I've heard, which is not that much actually) and so far, his commentary in his study bible. I have not read his books.

This is it for this discussion for me as it is not a priority. I hate Calvinist discussions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: This is it for this discussion for me as it is not a priority. I hate Calvinist discussions.

HP: No problem. Thanks for the response you gave.

 

[Burrito Breath]

Jack Hyles; a Cavlinist?

Another problem I have with Calvinism is that it might eventually lead a person to become overly confident, presumptuous, haughty and think of themselves as superior to everyone else. ???

Was Jack Hyles be a Cavlinist?

 

[Chris L.]

I'm not a Calvinist. That was from my page challenging the doctrine, even.

I wasn't sure if you were a Calvinist or not, so I apologize.

 

[Chris L.]

Was Jack Hyles be a Cavlinist?

:I don't know whether to laugh or to cry! :laugh: :tear:

 

[Link]

He then goes about to depict the deficiencies in the ‘easy-believism’ gospel as if though he detest it. What in the world makes any difference whether or not you just believe, or if in fact one yields themselves to the ‘Lordship of Christ’ if it is all of God??? He lays the foundation of the easy believism gospel in his preface and then tries to establish ‘Lordship salvation’ from the very roots of easy believism.

I don't see what your beef is with him over this. Wouldn't any Calvinist say that something goes on in the heart of someone who is regenerated? God doesn't just take people who never believe in their lives and accept them into eternal life because they are the elect does He? The elect believe and bear fruit.

Does MacArthur say that the reason one repents is because He chooses to and that God has not repaired his heart to repent?