J. Macarthur on John 3:16

[atpollard]

I just find the general handling of terms and definitions different.

I bet John didn't have people telling him what he really believed in the middle of his discussion.

 

[AustinC]

A Calvinist can still be a soul-winner, because, thank God Almighty, some of them will yield to the goading of the Holy Ghost within them to overcome their intellectual folly and witness anyway. Every witnessing Calvinist denies his Calvinism in practice. Thank God.

George, you certainly have little grasp of monergism and the Supremacy of God when you make these statements.

 

[AustinC]

The point of the O.P. is his doctrinal disagreements with our resident Calvinists. Why mist something be profound?

Reynolds, you bring up MacArthur, but you provide zero information about what he actually said. Your OP is therefore worthless as a talking point. If you have zero information from MacArthur, just admit it so we can be assured you are merely speaking out of your own baseless opinion.

 

[AustinC]

Listen for yourself. Its his current series.

Reynolds, I don't know where to go. Post the link and I will go listen to the section you are referring to. I will not look for a needle in a haystack simply because you are too stubborn to do the work you should have done in the OP.

 

[George Antonios]

George, you certainly have little grasp of monergism and the Supremacy of God when you make these statements.

You're probably right; such little grasp is most likely due to being more familiar with the scriptures than Gnostic philosophy.

 

[AustinC]

Listen for yourself. Its his current series.

Who is R.M.? Do you mean John Macarthur?
I will get into the specifics butr first lets go to an easy one. You call Double Predestination all kinds of nasty names. Unless you have changed, you definitely disagree with it. You and J.M. agree 100% on doctrines of grace?
Double-Predestination Biblical

First, thank you for the link. This is what I was wanting to have and you supplied it.

Second, it is actually RC Sproul sharing his definition of double-predestination and the positive-negative view against the abhorrent positive-positive view (which many non-calvinists seem to imagine to be the standard Reformed view). John MacArthur fully agrees with Sproul at the end of the clip. I agree with Sproul's definition of double-predestination as it what I believe God expresses in the Bible.

 

[AustinC]

As long as we are dropping names, I never even saw John MacArthur in person.
I did see Simon and Garfunkel live at their reunion concert in Central Park.

Totally off-topic: Listen to Paul Simon's "Boy in the Bubble" and compare it to Peter Gabriel's version of the same song. Peter Gabriel's version gives you the intensity of what was happening in South Africa compared to Simon's happy sound.

 

[AustinC]

You're probably right; such little grasp is most likely due to being more familiar with the scriptures than Gnostic philosophy.

I admit I am very familiar with the scriptures, not with gnosticism. It seems you know much about gnosticism.

 

[Reynolds]

First, thank you for the link. This is what I was wanting to have and you supplied it.

Second, it is actually RC Sproul sharing his definition of double-predestination and the positive-negative view against the abhorrent positive-positive view (which many non-calvinists seem to imagine to be the standard Reformed view). John MacArthur fully agrees with Sproul at the end of the clip. I agree with Sproul's definition of double-predestination as it what I believe God expresses in the Bible.

Icon opposes "double predestination".
It is a unique clip because it is an instance in which Macarthur owns instead of evading the term double predestination.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes........ and no.

To which question?

 

[Yeshua1]

John Calvin on John 3:16

"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found inthe world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."

John MacArthur might be a "Calvinist". But John Calvin was most certainly NOT!!!

No, for we hold that the Gospel is a real call made out to all of the lost, but that their rejection is not due to any deficit in God nor the Gospel, but in themselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

J.M. pretty much says the same in this series.

Both are saying classic Calvinism, as we do offer Jesus as the risen Lord to all sinners, but those who reject do so willingly!

 

[Yeshua1]

Icon opposes "double predestination".
It is a unique clip because it is an instance in which Macarthur owns instead of evading the term double predestination.

Most calvinists view that as Dr Sproul held!

 

[SavedByGrace]

No, for we hold that the Gospel is a real call made out to all of the lost, but that their rejection is not due to any deficit in God nor the Gospel, but in themselves!

so, for these to be "able" to reject the Gospel, must mean that they have a "free will" to do so? Or do you suppose God "made" them reject the Gospel? You can see the folly of Calvinism!

 

[Yeshua1]

George, you certainly have little grasp of monergism and the Supremacy of God when you make these statements.

Why did many missions form by calvinists? they held to God being the One to work to make sure that thru their preaching /teaching of the Lord Jesus, he would make sure to get some saved, as their results would not be in vain!

 

[Yeshua1]

Reynolds, you bring up MacArthur, but you provide zero information about what he actually said. Your OP is therefore worthless as a talking point. If you have zero information from MacArthur, just admit it so we can be assured you are merely speaking out of your own baseless opinion.

If being a calvinist means we do not even bother to teach/preach Jesus to the lost, I am not a calvinist then!
I know that we affirm to be doing that, so we are in "mainstream calvinism" here on the board!

 

[Yeshua1]

You're probably right; such little grasp is most likely due to being more familiar with the scriptures than Gnostic philosophy.

All calvinists hold to the primacy and supremacy of the scriptures. not vain philosophy!

 

[Yeshua1]

First, thank you for the link. This is what I was wanting to have and you supplied it.

Second, it is actually RC Sproul sharing his definition of double-predestination and the positive-negative view against the abhorrent positive-positive view (which many non-calvinists seem to imagine to be the standard Reformed view). John MacArthur fully agrees with Sproul at the end of the clip. I agree with Sproul's definition of double-predestination as it what I believe God expresses in the Bible.

Guess many think that we calvinists all hold to the "terrible doctrine" of DP as Calvin held with!

 

[Yeshua1]

so, for these to be "able" to reject the Gospel, must mean that they have a "free will" to do so? Or do you suppose God "made" them reject the Gospel? You can see the folly of Calvinism!

They are doing what comes naturally to them, as being lost in adam!

 

[Revmitchell]

Listen for yourself. Its his current series.

Who is R.M.? Do you mean John Macarthur?
I will get into the specifics butr first lets go to an easy one. You call Double Predestination all kinds of nasty names. Unless you have changed, you definitely disagree with it. You and J.M. agree 100% on doctrines of grace?
Double-Predestination Biblical

Rm is me