J. Macarthur on John 3:16

[Iconoclast]

Is it trying to pit Cals against one another or is it simply trying to have a coherent conversation? Example. If John Macarthur embraces double predestination, that is fine. If a Non-Cal says Calvinists embrace D.P. the outcry begins. Why not hold those within your ranks to the same standards you hold those outside your ranks?

If he was on bb, I would take him up on it.
There are texts for a positive predestination that the foreknown elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son.
There is not one text saying God actively predestined anyone to hell.
I do not change the wording if the scriptures do not give a reason for such a change.

 

[Reformed]

I have noticed often some noncals scurry to and fro,trying to pit one Cal.vs another

Yep. It happens on this board often. Some posters are prolific in their attempts. That is why I seldom participate in these threads anymore.

 

[George Antonios]

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

As do all Catholics on paper.

 

[AustinC]

As do all Catholics on paper.

Really? The catechism has nothing to do with Catholic beliefs...on paper?

Come on, George, let's be serious here.

 

[atpollard]

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!

An alcoholic just starting DTs has the "free will" to either suffer through a long, painful withdrawal or to grab another beer and quickly satisfy his cravings and flood his pleasure centers. As an alcoholic, it is in his "nature" to make one choice over the other. There is no NEED for anyone to come and pour beer down his throat to force him to drink.

Sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and all men became sinners - slaves to our sin. We are free to do whatever we want ... and as fallen men we want to sin.

The "folly" is claiming that all of the drunks really want to choose DTs rather than the 'buzz' of alcohol.

[Proverbs 9:17-18 NASB] "Stolen water is sweet; And bread eaten in secret is pleasant." But he does not know that the dead are there, That her guests are in the depths of Sheol.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ok, then you do not agree with Macarthur 100% on The Doctrines of Grace.
Double Predestination has the same Biblical support of Predestination. It is a sword thst cuts both ways. Denying it plays mere word games. High Calvinists, which are true to Original Calvinism, embrace reprobation.

I embrace the teaching of reprobation.
Perhaps you can show what you claim is the same degree of biblical support.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for the link.

The answer is yes, God loves all mankind, according to John Macarthur.

Does not mean that God intended to save all though!

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand it correctly. They disagree with an extreme version of D.P. but embrace classic D.P.
They disagree with an active reprobation, but they admit that reprobation is the unavoidable consequence of election.

They disagree with Hyper Calvininism!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no idea what article you're talkin about number one, and then number two I defend the historic confessional position which is infra lapsarianism. There are some Calvinists who will try to make a defense for supralapsarianism which is okay I looked at the view for a long time myself and it doesn't bother me at all but the mainstream hold the confectional view which is infra lapsarianism
Are you suggesting that the mainstream view is double predestination? Reformed asked you to describe mainstream Calvinism and as far as I can tell you've not done that yet

Mainstream Calvinist, as per the Confessions, would be the Infra view!

 

[Van]

Does not mean that God intended to save all though!

Claims without biblical support provide obfuscation. What John Macarthur's understanding indicates is God does indeed love all mankind, and thus the views of the posting Calvinists do not reflect the views of some Calvinists.

1 Timothy 2:4 says God desires all people to be saved. So once again the claims of the posting Calvinists is shown to be unstudied and unbiblical.

 

[Van]

Claims without biblical support provide obfuscation. What John Macarthur's understanding indicates is God does indeed love all mankind, and thus the views of the posting Calvinists do not reflect the views of some Calvinists.

1 Timothy 2:4 says God desires all people to be saved. So once again the claims of the posting Calvinists is shown to be unstudied and unbiblical.

And 1 Timothy 2:6 says Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, so God did indeed provide the means of salvation for the whole world, all mankind, for those to be saved and those never to be saved. 2 Peter 2:1.

 

[AustinC]

Claims without biblical support provide obfuscation. What John Macarthur's understanding indicates is God does indeed love all mankind, and thus the views of the posting Calvinists do not reflect the views of some Calvinists.

1 Timothy 2:4 says God desires all people to be saved. So once again the claims of the posting Calvinists is shown to be unstudied and unbiblical.

And 1 Timothy 2:6 says Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, so God did indeed provide the means of salvation for the whole world, all mankind, for those to be saved and those never to be saved. 2 Peter 2:1.

Clearly you and God must be universalists, based on your claims.

 

[Yeshua1]

And 1 Timothy 2:6 says Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, so God did indeed provide the means of salvation for the whole world, all mankind, for those to be saved and those never to be saved. 2 Peter 2:1.

Are you a follower of Barth, a Christian Universalist then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Clearly you and God must be universalists, based on your claims.

He seems to have read Barth!

 

[Van]

Clearly you and God must be universalists, based on your claims.

LOL, the Calvinist that says others do not understand Calvinism, yet makes claims inconsistent with Calvinists, now pretends he cannot read. Christ dying for those never to be saved is claimed by this Calvinist to mean everyone is saved. I kid you not...

 

[Van]

Are you a follower of Barth, a Christian Universalist then?

Yet another Calvinist that pretends he cannot read, claiming Christ dying for those never to be saved means everyone is saved. I kid you not...

 

[Van]

John 3:16 teaches God loves mankind in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Many Calvinists including John Macarthur, apparently hold this view. Does this make John a 4 pointer with Dr. Wiersbe?

 

[Yeshua1]

John 3:16 teaches God loves mankind in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Many Calvinists including John Macarthur, apparently hold this view. Does this make John a 4 pointer with Dr. Wiersbe?

Nope, as Dr mac still holds that God intended to have Jesus death provide definite salvation towards his own!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another Calvinist that pretends he cannot read, claiming Christ dying for those never to be saved means everyone is saved. I kid you not...

So Jesus death brought reconciliation between the lost sinner in hell and the father?

 

[AustinC]

LOL, the Calvinist that says others do not understand Calvinism, yet makes claims inconsistent with Calvinists, now pretends he cannot read. Christ dying for those never to be saved is claimed by this Calvinist to mean everyone is saved. I kid you not...

So, you don't deny being a universalist...