• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is John McCarthur a Calvinist?

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
MacArthur was correct in this verse, "all men" means 100% of all men everywhere.

Being a Calvinist, this naturally causes you a big problem, because you have been taught that God has only chosen to regenerate a certain number of men and impose faith on them, and pass by all the rest.

God does not impose faith on anyone. He offers salvation to any man who will believe his word and trust his Son Jesus to save them. So while God desires all men to be saved, he does not force any man to be saved, but every man must choose for himself whether he will trust Jesus or not. Some men choose not to trust Jesus and therefore are lost.

MacArthur is simply starting to understand the word of God for what it really says, God is not willing that any should perish, but all men everywhere should repent.

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

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

"All" in these verses means 100% of men.

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

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Look, nobody saw Jesus come in his glory with his angels in 70 A.D. either, but Peter, James, and John saw Jesus in HIS GLORY, that is plainly said.

Luk 9:30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

And let's look at the verses you posted;

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
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.

I am sure you will not admit of this, but it is very possible that in each of these three examples, the first verse IS speaking of when Jesus comes to judge the world, but the second verse is speaking of the transfiguration. You know as well as I do that scripture is often written this way, it can jump from one time period to another from verse to verse, or even at a comma!

It is similar to the day of Pentacost when Peter said scripture was fulfilled;

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

On the day of Pentacost, when the disciples had flames above their heads and spoke with tongues, Peter said it was a fulfillment of scripture in Joel.

But not EVERYTHING Joel predicted happened. There was no blood, or smoke, the sun was not darkened, nor did the moon turn the color of blood. Yet Peter said this was a fulfillment of Joel. And it was, though it was only a "partial" fulfillment.

I propose it is the same when Jesus made these three statements in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The three disciples did not see Jesus come with his angels and judge the earth, but they most certainly saw Jesus come in power and glory. The rest will be fulfilled in the future, just as the rest of Joel will be fulfilled in the future.

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.
 

psalms109:31

Active Member
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bronconagurski

New Member
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.

But 40 years is definitelty not "soon" either. I mean, I read that what caused a lot of people to adopt the preterist view is that Jesus' prophecy was imminent and soon. So to me, 40 years is a problem also. If a thousand years is as a day, however, then 2000 years is like 2 days to God.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So you agree with this statement? "God genuinely desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." If this is true, then why aren't all men saved? Can you have it both ways? Let me ask plainly: Does God choose not to save some because they don't fit His eternal purpose, even though he would desire them to be saved? If so, did the Holy Spirit convict them, only to be rejected?

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.
 

Luke2427

Active Member
So you agree with this statement? "God genuinely desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." If this is true, then why aren't all men saved? Can you have it both ways? Let me ask plainly: Does God choose not to save some because they don't fit His eternal purpose, even though he would desire them to be saved? If so, did the Holy Spirit convict them, only to be rejected?

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).
 

Luke2427

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

Which is what you do with great vehemence.

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.

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.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
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.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
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.
 

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

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)
 

Bronconagurski

New Member
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).

I don't oppose Calvinism, but I do oppose those that can't answer questions about their belief without belittling the questioner. My questions were legitimate. Furthermore, you must be the one familiar with the IfB/sword of the Lord type stuff because I don't get my theology from either one. You have a lot of gall with your accusations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
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.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Tom is distracting you by speaking about the disciples death...

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?
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is similar to the day of Pentacost when Peter said scripture was fulfilled;
...
But not EVERYTHING Joel predicted happened. There was no blood, or smoke, the sun was not darkened, nor did the moon turn the color of blood. Yet Peter said this was a fulfillment of Joel. And it was, though it was only a "partial" fulfillment.

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.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is only one date that matters to Tom, and that is 70 A.D.

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is only one date that matters to Tom, and that is 70 A.D.

But did Jesus return before 70 A.D.? YES. He returned when Paul saw him on the road to Damascus. If you read Matthew 10 when Jesus said he would return before they went over all the cities of Israel, it actually fits the persecution of Saul (Paul) better than 70 A.D.

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

I believe this scripture was fulfilled when Jesus appeared to Saul (Paul).

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

During Paul's persecution, the believers were fleeing from city to city just as Jesus predicted. It was then that Jesus came, when he appeared to Paul. This had the effect of saving many believers.

If you ask me, when Jesus returned in 34-35 A.D. and appeared to Paul, this was a fulfillment of Matthew 10. Preterists NEVER mention this EVER.

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
 
Top