Is John McCarthur a Calvinist?

[Winman]

First of all, Jesus did not say he was coming in his kingdom, or coming with his angels, or coming to judge in Mat 10:23, he simply said he would come.

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 do not read into this verse more than it says. In Matthew 10 Jesus speaks of a great persecution, and that before they could go over every city of Israel he would come.

This is exactly what happened when Saul persecuted the church, we are told the disciples were scattered throughout Judaea and Samaria. And of course believers had fled to Damascus, or Saul would not be going there.

All I am saying is that when Jesus appeared to Saul, this fits Mat 10:23 better than 70 A.D.. No one has EVER said they saw Jesus in 70 A.D., but Saul personally saw Jesus come in 34-35 A.D.(approx.).

I have a coming of Jesus (Paul did not go up to heaven, Jesus came down to him) that is RECORDED in scripture, you have ZILCH.

I don't pretend to know everything about Preterism, but the little I do know convinces me it is total error.

 

[asterisktom]

First of all, Jesus did not say he was coming in his kingdom, or coming with his angels, or coming to judge in Mat 10:23, he simply said he would come.

You would make a good defense lawyer. In order for any point is believed from the Bible it has to be explicitly stated - every time. This would make the Bible ten times bigger than the Urantia Bible!

No, just look at the context. Christ is speaking of "the end", "the kingdom", "the day of judgment".

But I realize this evidence is of no value to one who snips off context at the very next comma.

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 do not read into this verse more than it says. In Matthew 10 Jesus speaks of a great persecution, and that before they could go over every city of Israel he would come.

All I am asking people is to read the context, not just the verse. That is not asking too much.

This is exactly what happened when Saul persecuted the church, we are told the disciples were scattered throughout Judaea and Samaria. And of course believers had fled to Damascus, or Saul would not be going there.

Serious stretching. You say that you are just reading into the verse (Matt. 10:23) what is there. Why do you not at least do the same here, realizing there is no mention of "coming"? You are fixed on actual words only when it suits your purpose.

All I am saying is that when Jesus appeared to Saul, this fits Mat 10:23 better than 70 A.D.. No one has EVER said they saw Jesus in 70 A.D., but Saul personally saw Jesus come in 34-35 A.D.(approx.).

Saul saw no such thing.

No one "saw" Jesus in AD 70 in the sense that you meant, a visible Jesus. But those who did "see" Him, in the true, spiritual sense, did not report it in the Bible because the last book had already been written by then.

At any rate, their seeing was the same as what Nathanael saw in John 1. Christ told him that he would "see angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man".

When did Nathaneal see that? To answer that question is to better understand the other question.

I have a coming of Jesus (Paul did not go up to heaven, Jesus came down to him) that is RECORDED in scripture, you have ZILCH.

You have nothing, like I wrote above. Where do you get "recorded"?

I don't pretend to know everything about Preterism, but the little I do know convinces me it is total error.

I am glad that you at least admit that you know little about it. I wish you would do more reading on the subject, less writing. The are some critiquers of Preterism that I actually enjoy reading. Even though I believe they are wrong, they often point out fallacies in my belief system. If they use Scripture - in context, with logic - they are especially valuable.

Here are some problems for Preterists:
1. It is true that many over-emphasize AD70 and Josephus. Part of that comes out of necessity when critics press certain objections. We often give the impression that we stuck in that past period. The emphasis should rather be on the present kingdom and all this entails.
2. Some Preterists go to the opposite extreme of spiritualizing all or almost all of the Bible. Specifically, they turn the Creation account into a metaphorical treatment.
3. Some Preterists - a minority, thankfully - espouse universalism,believing all will eventually be saved.

 

[Winman]

You would make a good defense lawyer. In order for any point is believed from the Bible it has to be explicitly stated - every time. This would make the Bible ten times bigger than the Urantia Bible!

No, I simply try to read scripture for what it actually says, and I try to be careful not to read into it what it does not say.

No, just look at the context. Christ is speaking of "the end", "the kingdom", "the day of judgment".

But I realize this evidence is of no value to one who snips off context at the very next comma.

Actually, the context of Matthew 10 is that Jesus is sending out the 12 disciples to witness to Israel only, then he begins to speak of being persecuted.

All I am asking people is to read the context, not just the verse. That is not asking too much.

And I just told you the context.

Serious stretching. You say that you are just reading into the verse (Matt. 10:23) what is there. Why do you not at least do the same here, realizing there is no mention of "coming"? You are fixed on actual words only when it suits your purpose.

Saul saw no such thing.

Well, Paul certainly did not go up to meet Jesus, but Jesus himself said he appeared to Paul. Jesus had to come for this to happen. All the men saw the light and heard a sound.

Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Jesus not only said he appeared to Saul (Paul) at this time, he seems to imply he will appear to him in the future as well.

No one "saw" Jesus in AD 70 in the sense that you meant, a visible Jesus. But those who did "see" Him, in the true, spiritual sense, did not report it in the Bible because the last book had already been written by then.

I am no history buff, but I don't believe any man saw a vision like Paul did in 70 A.D.. I do not know exactly what Paul saw, but Jesus himself said he appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus.

At any rate, their seeing was the same as what Nathanael saw in John 1. Christ told him that he would "see angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man".

And how do you know that Nathanael did not see this? Just because we are not given the account does not mean it did not happen. I certainly wouldn't accuse Jesus of being a liar.

When did Nathaneal see that? To answer that question is to better understand the other question.

That is not told, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You have nothing, like I wrote above. Where do you get "recorded"?

I just showed you, Jesus himself said he appeared to Paul in Acts 26.

I am glad that you at least admit that you know little about it. I wish you would do more reading on the subject, less writing. The are some critiquers of Preterism that I actually enjoy reading. Even though I believe they are wrong, they often point out fallacies in my belief system. If they use Scripture - in context, with logic - they are especially valuable.

Here are some problems for Preterists:
1. It is true that many over-emphasize AD70 and Josephus. Part of that comes out of necessity when critics press certain objections. We often give the impression that we stuck in that past period. The emphasis should rather be on the present kingdom and all this entails.
2. Some Preterists go to the opposite extreme of spiritualizing all or almost all of the Bible. Specifically, they turn the Creation account into a metaphorical treatment.
3. Some Preterists - a minority, thankfully - espouse universalism,believing all will eventually be saved.

I simply believe that when Jesus returns, it shall be the greatest event in history since when he was crucified and rose from the dead, and the whole wide world will know for a certainty when it occurs. The scriptures say every eye will see him. He will set up his millennial kingdom, which I believe is real and literal.

I find it impossible to believe Jesus came in 70 A.D., and his kingdom began.

I also believe scripture such as I have posted in Zechariah where Jesus will come to defend Jerusalem and fight against all the nations that come against it. This did not happen in 70 A.D.. Jesus is coming to save his people, not destroy them.

I actually find Preterism boring. It offers no hope. If what we are living now is the world of Jesus's kingdom, it is very disappointing to say the least.

I don't claim to know it all, or even very well at all, prophecy is very difficult to understand. But I do not believe Jesus returned and set up his kingdom in 70 A.D., and I do not find Preterism convincing in the least.

 

[asterisktom]

No, I simply try to read scripture for what it actually says, and I try to be careful not to read into it what it does not say.



Actually, the context of Matthew 10 is that Jesus is sending out the 12 disciples to witness to Israel only, then he begins to speak of being persecuted.



And I just told you the context.



Well, Paul certainly did not go up to meet Jesus, but Jesus himself said he appeared to Paul. Jesus had to come for this to happen. All the men saw the light and heard a sound.

Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Jesus not only said he appeared to Saul (Paul) at this time, he seems to imply he will appear to him in the future as well.



I am no history buff, but I don't believe any man saw a vision like Paul did in 70 A.D.. I do not know exactly what Paul saw, but Jesus himself said he appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus.



And how do you know that Nathanael did not see this? Just because we are not given the account does not mean it did not happen. I certainly wouldn't accuse Jesus of being a liar.



That is not told, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.



I just showed you, Jesus himself said he appeared to Paul in Acts 26.



I simply believe that when Jesus returns, it shall be the greatest event in history since when he was crucified and rose from the dead, and the whole wide world will know for a certainty when it occurs. The scriptures say every eye will see him. He will set up his millennial kingdom, which I believe is real and literal.

I find it impossible to believe Jesus came in 70 A.D., and his kingdom began.

I also believe scripture such as I have posted in Zechariah where Jesus will come to defend Jerusalem and fight against all the nations that come against it. This did not happen in 70 A.D.. Jesus is coming to save his people, not destroy them.

I actually find Preterism boring. It offers no hope. If what we are living now is the world of Jesus's kingdom, it is very disappointing to say the least.

I don't claim to know it all, or even very well at all, prophecy is very difficult to understand. But I do not believe Jesus returned and set up his kingdom in 70 A.D., and I do not find Preterism convincing in the least.

OK, sticking the fork in this one. It is done.

 

[webdog]

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.

My reply was to IC who specifically stated that passage didn't mean "all men".

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin

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:

No calvinism simply understands the verse properly.

All physically born...die in Adam [physical birth]

In Christ....shall All be made alive....[spiritual birth required]

all people are born in Adam

Only the elect are IN CHRIST as in You must be born from above.

Calvinists understand this verse correctly, others wrest it and have a totally wrong conclusion.:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

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

Yes...the same ones he said we should pray for,
2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

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

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Verse two speaks to it...if he is just talking about all men...why does he mention kings and those in authority...They would have been covered by all men.
He is saying not to neglect unsaved leaders, so we can live a quiet and peaceable life as in verse2:thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

Hard to say according to these comments about scripture in I Tim. 2:

Obviously, in some inscrutable sense, God's desire for the world's salvation is different from His eternal saving purpose. We can understand this to some degree from a human perspective; after all, our purposes frequently differ from our desires. We may desire, for example, to spend a day at leisure, yet a higher purpose compels us to go to work instead. Similarly, God's saving purposes transcend His desires. (There is a crucial difference, of course: We might be compelled by circumstances beyond our control to choose what we do not desire. But God's choices are determined by nothing other than His own sovereign, eternal purpose).
God genuinely desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Yet in "the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph. 3:11), He chose only the elect "out of the world" (John 17:6), and passed over the rest, leaving them to the damning consequences of their sin (cf. Rom. 1:18-32). The culpability for their damnation rests entirely on them because of their sin and rejection of God. God is not to blame for their unbelief.
Since God desires all men to be saved, we are not required to ascertain that a person is elect before praying for that person's salvation. God alone knows who all the elect are (2 Tim. 2:19). We may pray on behalf of all men with full assurance that such prayers are good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior. After all, "the Lord is gracious and merciful; slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works" (Ps. 145:8-9).MacArthur New Testament Commentary, The - MacArthur New Testament Commentary – 1 Timothy.

As far as I'm concerned, this goes right along with the Calvinistic/DoG doctrine. He seems quite consistent within that theological system.

 

[percho]

All I know is, if God is doing the saving all will be saved that are saved but if only, all who believe and or repent are the ones saved then only those who want to be saved will be saved.

 

[percho]

Yes...the same ones he said we should pray for,
2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

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

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Verse two speaks to it...if he is just talking about all men...why does he mention kings and those in authority...They would have been covered by all men.
He is saying not to neglect unsaved leaders, so we can live a quiet and peaceable life as in verse2:thumbsup:

Should all of the Christians in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's been giving.
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks,
for those in authority.

I believe Paul says this because in this present age those in authority have been put there by God and are the kingdoms of this world and in contrast to the world to come the kingdom of God.

I believe all means all.

 

[psalms109:31]

If God didn't create us with a free agency then yes all will be saved, but we know with Adam that is not the case he went against the will of God. We know since God does all the saving when we repent we should have no doubt we wIll lIve. We don't see it so we have to take grace by faith alone. The wages of sin is death not belief, not trust, not repentance, not even faith. So we are saved by grace not what we have done.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hard to say according to these comments about scripture in I Tim. 2:

Obviously, in some inscrutable sense, God's desire for the world's salvation is different from His eternal saving purpose. We can understand this to some degree from a human perspective; after all, our purposes frequently differ from our desires. We may desire, for example, to spend a day at leisure, yet a higher purpose compels us to go to work instead. Similarly, God's saving purposes transcend His desires. (There is a crucial difference, of course: We might be compelled by circumstances beyond our control to choose what we do not desire. But God's choices are determined by nothing other than His own sovereign, eternal purpose).
God genuinely desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Yet in "the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph. 3:11), He chose only the elect "out of the world" (John 17:6), and passed over the rest, leaving them to the damning consequences of their sin (cf. Rom. 1:18-32). The culpability for their damnation rests entirely on them because of their sin and rejection of God. God is not to blame for their unbelief.
Since God desires all men to be saved, we are not required to ascertain that a person is elect before praying for that person's salvation. God alone knows who all the elect are (2 Tim. 2:19). We may pray on behalf of all men with full assurance that such prayers are good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior. After all, "the Lord is gracious and merciful; slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works" (Ps. 145:8-9).MacArthur New Testament Commentary, The - MacArthur New Testament Commentary – 1 Timothy.

To answewr your OP itself...

I see him much as myself, a Dispy calvinist, but many would denty that we can be both of those!

 

[Luke2427]

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.

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.

 

[Luke2427]

My reply was to IC who specifically stated that passage didn't mean "all men".

I understand.

But my point was that it really does not mean "all men" in the sense that some non-calvinists seem to try to make it say.

It COULD mean "all men" in that way but it is WAY too simplistic a handling of the Scripture to say "It SAYS 'all men' so by George I believe it means every single man who has ever been or ever will be born- BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE BIBLE!!!"

I know you know better than to think that way, but there are some on this thread who do NOT know better and prove it time and time again here on baptistboard.

 

[SovereignMercy]

I understand.

But my point was that it really does not mean "all men" in the sense that some non-calvinists seem to try to make it say.

It COULD mean "all men" in that way but it is WAY too simplistic a handling of the Scripture to say "It SAYS 'all men' so by George I believe it means every single man who has ever been or ever will be born- BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE BIBLE!!!"

I know you know better than to think that way, but there are some on this thread who do NOT know better and prove it time and time again here on baptistboard.

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle-I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying-a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Scripture interprets scripture. You ignore the passages that clearly shed light on this text. It obviously means all kinds of men, not all men without exception in light of other Scripture passages like these:

For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God-and righteousness and sanctification and redemption- that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the LORD."

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

*****Crickets*****

 

[Luke2427]

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle-I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying-a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Scripture interprets scripture. You ignore the passages that clearly shed light on this text. It obviously means all kinds of men, not all men without exception in light of other Scripture passages like these:

For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God-and righteousness and sanctification and redemption- that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the LORD."

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Either I miswrote or you misread.

I agree with you.

I am speaking against the attitude of simplicity that some opponents of what you purport here employ in their "exegesis" of Scripture.

 

[Luke2427]

*****Crickets*****

it is the same all.

God considers not just Gentiles to be disobedient but Israel as well.

The all does not refer to individuals here- it refers to races of mankind.

But that ALL are sinners in an "every individual" sense is clear from earlier chapters with which we are all familiar.

 

[Benjamin]

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)

Benjamin

No calvinism simply understands the verse properly.

All physically born...die in Adam [physical birth]

In Christ....shall All be made alive....[spiritual birth required]

all people are born in Adam

Only the elect are IN CHRIST as in You must be born from above.

Calvinists understand this verse correctly, others wrest it and have a totally wrong conclusion.:wavey:

No, I understand it as written, you force fit interpretions on it after reading it through Calvie glasses, just like I explained. The spiritual redemption is appliable to all just like the death was to all. Calvinism has been warned of and you simply gave an example of how not to interpret scripture:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(Col 2:8)

 

[Bronconagurski]

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.

See, this is the problem with a lot of Calvanists: They think they are on some higher spiritual intelligence plane. You need to read the OP and think about it and maybe you will find out you don't know it all.