MacArthur's Calvinism

[Yelsew]

My point is ... if you call knowing I cannot come b/c I am dead, is the call genuine? If Christ says "come" and I cannot come, is the call legitimate.

Being dead did not stop Lazarus from coming forth from the grave when Jesus Called! And No, Lazarus could not NOT heed the call. That call to already dead "Believer Lazarus", however, is entirely different than the call to belief. The Call to come to belief is based entirely on man's choice to do so! It is a test to find those who are willing to be saved. It is made often, but it is not made once one is dead in the natural realm, but only while one is living the natural life.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
My point is ... if you call knowing I cannot come b/c I am dead, is the call genuine?

Yes, unless you are willing to attribute something to God I am not. Both facts are true. The problem is only in my ability to reconcile them. It is not in the facts themselves that come from God.

So you are suggesting there is no genuine foreknowledge - predestination debate???

Yes.

The explicit statement is that God foreknew and chose. How those terms are defined is debatable (thus the ongoing dialogue for basically all of church history).

Not really. The controversy only comes when you try to define the terms by a system rather than by Scripture. I realize you disagree with me on that and that is fine.

It is a man-created system designed to explain divine reality (as all systematic theology is). Because of that, it has weaknesses. It is not perfect. It cannot be equated with biblicism.

Obviously I disagree with the way that you have put this. Systematic theology is not a man-created system. It is a reconciliation of what the Scriptures say. There are some things open to interpretation. There are other things that are not because of the clarity with which they are expressed.

But it does try and work them out. Just see your latest discussion on faith and repentance as gifts. That is Calvinism's attempt to work it out. Again, I am not saying I disagree with the conclusions of the system, but I do recognize it is a system that is not without flaw and that Calvinism is not God's explanation of soteriology.

But it is "working them out" by interpreting Scripture with Scripture, not by forcing a system onto Scripture. That is a big difference. The "working out" it the result of explicit statements, not mere logic.

I find it hard to believe a person with no knowledge of the debate could pick up a Bible, read it entirely, and derive the 5 points of Calvinism.

I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't. That is how I came to mine, but I actually was predisposed to the alternative position. It is the mere reading of Scripture that turned my mind.

]It almost makes me laugh when I hear Calvinists say this. I am not sure whether it should be considered arrogant or a desperate attempt to link a man-created system back to the Early Church.

You should consider it neither. In view of the Scripture, it is a mere statement of the facts.

Here's a challenge for you ... show me the 5 points of Calvinism strictly using the words of Jesus. Here's a greater challenge ... show me the 5 points w/o using John 6.

I will take this challenge as soon as I can. I am in the midst of weekend prep and have an appointment in one hour.

]I am not sure how one could study the life and history of Calvin himself and not believe his system was driven by philosophy and logic.

I am not sure either since I have neither studied nor read either the life or history of Calvin. He is a non-issue. We are driven by Scripture, not by man.

As I have illustrated above, Calvinism does not allow individual Scriptures to stand alone. Verse A has to always be interpreted in light of verse B in the system.

Scripture exists as a whole. It was never meant to be interpreted in isolation. There is a context and in interpretation context, both literary and theological is king.

To suggest that Calvinism does not attempt to "figure out" or explain how God works in the hearts of people is simply misleading. The whole system is an explanation of what Calvinists believe is God's way of converting and keeping sinners.

[/qb]I think you err here. We do not figure out how God works. John 3 describers it as the wind, that we do not know where it comes or where it goes. I am satisfied with that. Perhaps some others do try to figure it out. If so, I haven't seen them.

The more we discuss these things, the further you drift from what MacArthur said and simply display the normal responses of Calvinists who go to all lengths to defend their system.

Perhaps you can show somewhere that I have drifted from what MacArthur said.

Calvinism is man's explanation of how he believes God works. It is not God's explanation to man.

I would completely disagree for obvious reasons. Every single point of Calvinism can be supported by Scripture where God explains it to man. That doesn't mean we understand it all. It simply means that the support is there in God's own words.

I think this issue is clouded a great deal by your attempt to color Calvinism in a particular light. I reject your characterization of it and so, in a sense, I am answering charges that do not apply to me, nor to any Calvinists that I know of. If you know of particular people who hold these various views you cite here, perhaps that would be fodder for discussion.

 

[Yelsew]

Obviously I disagree with the way that you have put this. Systematic theology is not a man-created system. It is a reconciliation of what the Scriptures say. There are some things open to interpretation. There are other things that are not because of the clarity with which they are expressed.

Pastor Larry, you are quite simply wrong on this point! Calvinism, Catholocism, Batistism, Methodism, etc. are all man's attempts to define God. Systematic Theology is not what God does, but what man does in an attempt to know God. Because it is of man and not God, it is subject to weakness regardless of its completeness, hence the on-going dialog to establish "correctnessism".

 

[All about Grace]

Larry,

I can see this discussion will most likely continue to digress, so I will wrap it up with a few basic observations. This is why I keep forbidding myself (to no avail at times) from getting involved in this debate -- many Calvinists think they have it all figured out (I can't speak for Arminians since most of my dialogue and circle of peers are some form of Calvinist).

1. Systematic theology is a human effort to systematize what God has already said in His word. Calvinism is a systematic theology. It is at least 3 steps removed from the text itself (interpretation - biblical theology - systematics), so to equate it with Scripture is giving way too much credit to finite humanity's ability to articulate God's revelation and work.

2. Calvinism interprets Scripture through its own grid. You interpret the "free will" texts thru a systematic lens. That is why Calvinists are forced to interpret certain texts in a manner that is consistent with their SYSTEM (e.g., 1 Pet 3.9 & 1 Jn 2.2). For a Calvinists, these texts must be read IN LIGHT OF other texts that they believe affirm their systematic beliefs. This is the point I was making in the previous post that you missed. It is not a matter of each text must be interpreted in light of the whole. It is a matter of Calvinists have a system by which they interpret each individual text. If they did not, they would not have to explain the difficult texts in an obvioulsy unnatural manner.

BTW it is hard for me to imagine someone could pick up a Bible, read 1 Jn 2.2, and come away with Limited Atonement (regardless of some other texts which speak of specific sacrifice), but if that is what you maintain, that is your choice.

3. Your suggestion that Calvin is a non-issue is amazing to me. One cannot understand fully Calvinism w/o understanding the logic and philosophy behind TULIP. You can try and bifurcate the man from the system as much as you choose. You can even try and link a system back to Jesus and the apostles, but the bottom line is that Calvinism must be understood in light of what it is and from where it came. It is a systematic theology. If someone wanted to study Calvinism, do you know the place where they should look -- in SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY sources!!! I am really surprised you would suggest otherwise.

4. I am equally surprised that you suggest Calvinism is not an attempt to explain how God works. The system in and of itself are logical subsequential steps explaining how a totally depraved person becomes a preserved saint. Calvinism is most definitely a human attempt to explain a divine matter. You should not shy away from this idea. Even defining God as a Trinity is a human means of explaining God. Systems have their strengths and weaknesses. They are not perfect. That is part of what separates the infinite from the finite.

5. I make no attempt to color Calvinism in any light (I have repeatedly stated I fall closer to that "camp" than the other). I am simply identifying Calvinism for what it is -- a system articulated by a certain scholar and perpetuated by his followers. It is a human explanation of a divine action. And because of that, it is not perfect nor error free.

MacArthur recognizes this and so should each of us.

 

[Eric B]

Where Calvinism tries to work it all out is in positing the idea that God does not want to save certain people, yet "calls" them anyway, in the first place. In practice, bnoth sides agree in the need to win souls. But it is nothing without that docrine of unconditional preterition of all who never get saved. People who challenge this are then accused of "not letting the tensions stand", and trying to work them out; etc. and then salvation and damnation are laid out almost as if life was a great big script, where God writes everything, and it "plays out" in time. This simplistic scenario comes from our not being able to figure out how God can work in a world of time. This is the true "tension" which needs to be allowed to stand.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by swaimj:
If MacArthur teaches what Calvinism teaches, then why does MacArthur refer to himself as a "leaky Calvinist"?

My suspicion is that it is for the same reason the rest of us don't prefer that name ... uninformed people accuse us of following a man made system. I cannot speak for him. Reading what he said in these few lines given, I see no reason to doubt his Calvinism. When you add in the other things that he has said in other places, it seems beyond question. Most calvinist modify to some degree or another some of the points. But what all calvinists have in common is Mac's second statement, that God unconditionally elects to salvation.

Since I modify them I think it is dishonest to call myself a calvinist, and I don't. In that sense I agree with MacArthur's comments as well.

But from what I have seen of what you have posted, you have "modified" calvinism in the same way that a car "modified" a tree to become a car. In that sense, I do not think you modify it at all. You have completely departed from it. MacArthur's comments seems totally different.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
If God had decreed to save every man without exception, Jesus would have borne every man's sins without exception.

Exactly and that is what is meant by provided an objective salvation. It means that Christ's death is sufficient for all sin for all man for all time. That does not deny it is efficient (i.e., saving) only for the elect.

I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to get across, but the way I see your doctrine of the atonement is Arminianism. Perhaps I am only seeing part of the picture, whatever that means.

The part of the picture you are not seeing is the part above ... that the merit of Christ's death is infinite. There is no one whom it could not save, even though it only saves the elect. My doctrine is the typical 5 point Calvinist position; it is most certainly not arminian.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
1. Systematic theology is a human effort to systematize what God has already said in His word. Calvinism is a systematic theology. It is at least 3 steps removed from the text itself (interpretation - biblical theology - systematics), so to equate it with Scripture is giving way too much credit to finite humanity's ability to articulate God's revelation and work.

I agree to some degree. But I think it foolish and presumptive to deny what God has clearly said. To say that saying what God has clearly said is "systematic" and therefore suspect is wrong, IMO.

2. Calvinism interprets Scripture through its own grid. You interpret the "free will" texts thru a systematic lens. That is why Calvinists are forced to interpret certain texts in a manner that is consistent with their SYSTEM (e.g., 1 Pet 3.9 & 1 Jn 2.2). For a Calvinists, these texts must be read IN LIGHT OF other texts that they believe affirm their systematic beliefs. This is the point I was making in the previous post that you missed. It is not a matter of each text must be interpreted in light of the whole. It is a matter of Calvinists have a system by which they interpret each individual text. If they did not, they would not have to explain the difficult texts in an obvioulsy unnatural manner.

Obviously I dsiagree. I see no basis for this. It is impossible to interpret Scripture in isolation. Most Calvinists have no problem with those particular texts, at least that I am aware of. But these texts do not and cannot stand in contradiction of a simple God (as in opposite of complex meaning multiple systems of truth). The law of non-contradiction does exist and no amount of wishing will make it go away. God is consistent.

BTW it is hard for me to imagine someone could pick up a Bible, read 1 Jn 2.2, and come away with Limited Atonement (regardless of some other texts which speak of specific sacrifice), but if that is what you maintain, that is your choice.

I don't deny unlimited atonement. I don't affirm it from 1 John 2:2 simply because of the meaning of "propitiation." There are verses that teach unlimited atonement; 1 John 2:2 is simply not one of them.

3. Your suggestion that Calvin is a non-issue is amazing to me. One cannot understand fully Calvinism w/o understanding the logic and philosophy behind TULIP. You can try and bifurcate the man from the system as much as you choose. You can even try and link a system back to Jesus and the apostles, but the bottom line is that Calvinism must be understood in light of what it is and from where it came. It is a systematic theology. If someone wanted to study Calvinism, do you know the place where they should look -- in SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY sources!!! I am really surprised you would suggest otherwise.

I think here you are wrong. I cannot see any reason why the man should be an issue. The arminians try this desparately. But I reject it. My calvinism came from Scripture, not from Calvin. I did not get it through a theology book. I was a Calvinist long before I was avid theological reader and student. Perhaps other people are different. IMO, if someone wants to study soteriology, you start with Scripture and when you do that, it is difficult to understand how someone would came away denying unconditional election.

4. I am equally surprised that you suggest Calvinism is not an attempt to explain how God works. The system in and of itself are logical subsequential steps explaining how a totally depraved person becomes a preserved saint. Calvinism is most definitely a human attempt to explain a divine matter. You should not shy away from this idea. Even defining God as a Trinity is a human means of explaining God. Systems have their strengths and weaknesses. They are not perfect. That is part of what separates the infinite from the finite.

You define man made system differently than I do. I do not believe that taking the statements of Scripture and relating them to one another so as to not be contradictory is man made. After all, God is the one who said it. If you are of the opinion that any relation of Scripture to another Scripture is "man-made" than I will agree.

5. I make no attempt to color Calvinism in any light (I have repeatedly stated I fall closer to that "camp" than the other). I am simply identifying Calvinism for what it is -- a system articulated by a certain scholar and perpetuated by his followers. It is a human explanation of a divine action. And because of that, it is not perfect nor error free.

MacArthur recognizes this and so should each of us.

To some degree. It seems that a lot of what you and I are discussing are using terms in different ways. I can understand what you are trying to say but I think that it is far too simplistic, at least as I have typically thought. But so be it ...

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Pastor Larry,

The reason I do not understand "your typical five-point Calvinist position," and it may very well be, is because Primitive Baptists believe that when Jesus died, He actually made an atonement for the sins of His people, that He forever perfected them. He purged their sins, obtained eternal redemption for them, reconciled them to God, and justified them before the justice bar of God. We believe that Jesus died for the actual sins of actual people. We do believe that the atonement is experimentally received through faith. John Gill wrote, "Faith and righteousness are two distinct things. Otherwise, righteousness could not be said to be "through" faith. The righteousness of Christ is the sole matter of justification and comes to us through faith, apprehending, receiving, and embracing it; and which shows that it must be before faith or it could not be through it; as water that runs through a bridge must be before and after that bridge through which it runs." Now do you understand why I might be a little confused about you are trying to explain? Do you not believe that the blood of Christ was effective at the cross? Must it be procured by our faith to have any value? Jesus Christ made peace by the blood of His cross. How, then, can anything be laid to their charge? However, since faith is the matter of our justification, we can be condemned even though Christ has died for us if we have not faith. If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful, for he cannot deny himself. Now, if faith is what makes the blood of Christ have any real meaning to the elect, what do you have to say about that statement Paul wrote?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Primitive Baptists believe that when Jesus died, He actually made an atonement for the sins of His people,

This is simply Scripture. The atonement was a propitiation. It was a satisfaction for the sins of hte elect.

However, that is only part of the question at hand in thte limited atonement debate. The other side, as you demonstrated earlier with your answer, is that the merit of Christ's death cannot be limited merely to the elect. His sacrifice was enough to save anyone at anyone. It simply was not intended to in a narrow sense.

Now do you understand why I might be a little confused about you are trying to explain?

No not really. The truth is that the value of Christ's death is limitless. It is infinite.

Do you not believe that the blood of Christ was effective at the cross? Must it be procured by our faith to have any value?

You phrase the question in a prejudiced way. The atonement is valuable inherently. But in the life of the elect, it is by faith that justification is received, or experienced. Prior to an individual's faith, there is no justification. Justification comes through faith as Paul said.

However, since faith is the matter of our justification, we can be condemned even though Christ has died for us if we have not faith.

And this is a statement that I would make about the non-elect. We can rightly say that Christ died for them. Yet because they do not have faith, they are condemned.

If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful, for he cannot deny himself. Now, if faith is what makes the blood of Christ have any real meaning to the elect, what do you have to say about that statement Paul wrote?

I am not sure that verse has anything to do with atonement but I would have to look at the context again. I think Paul's statements about justification by faith are sufficient for themselves. He believed it and so should we. But he also taught these truths about the atonement of Christ.

 

[Yelsew]

Primative Baptist,

The reason I do not understand "your typical five-point Calvinist position," and it may very well be, is because Primitive Baptists believe that when Jesus died, He actually made an atonement for the sins of His people, that He forever perfected them. He purged their sins, obtained eternal redemption for them, reconciled them to God, and justified them before the justice bar of God. We believe that Jesus died for the actual sins of actual people. We do believe that the atonement is experimentally received through faith.

You say, "his people", the scriptures say "for the sins of the world".
You say that Atonement Perfects, the scriptures say, "atonement pays the penalty for"
You say that Atonement Purges sins, the scriptures say that Atonement pays the penalty for sins.
You say Atonement brings eternal redemption for "his people", scriptures say that atonement pays the penalty for sins.
You say that atonement reconciled them (his people) to God, scriptures say that Jesus' atonement pays the penalty for the sins of the world.
You say that atonement justifies them (his people) before the justice bar of God, Yes that is what Scriptures say in Part! But more than that the scriptures say that atonement removed the penalty for sin for the whole world.
You say that Atonement is received "experimentally". Scriptures say that Atonement is done for man outside of man's experience, without man's knowledge, and without man's participation! It is wholly and completely a divine act performed by the second person of divity for the benefit of man.
You say that man receives atonement through faith. Scriptures say that atonement requires no faith whatever, that it is a done deal whether or not man has faith.

Scriptures tell me that atonement levels the playing field because sins are paid for, and the penalty for sins is not assessed against mankind for judgment purposes. Since works are of no salvific value, and sins are paid for, the judgment of man is based solely on his faith condition. Those having faith in Jesus are not judged, those lacking faith in Jesus are judged and cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Yelsew,

You have no idea what I believe nor what the Scriptures say.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Pastor Larry,

In other words, you do not believe the elect were justified immediately upon Christ's death, that it must be appropriated by faith?

 

[Kiffin]

The elect are not justified before they exhibit faith. The elect are justified by Faith.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
In other words, you do not believe the elect were justified immediately upon Christ's death, that it must be appropriated by faith?

How can a non-existent person be justified from sins that have not yet been committed???? That doesn't even make sense. Of course I don't believe that. The Bible teaches that man is justified by faith. That is how it is appropriated. A man is never justified without faith.

 

[All about Grace]

I agree to some degree. But I think it foolish and presumptive to deny what God has clearly said. To say that saying what God has clearly said is "systematic" and therefore suspect is wrong, IMO.

No one is denying what God has clearly said. That is not the issue. If God had clearly defined these issues, there would be no debate. Putting God's words into a soteriological system is systematic and therefore imperfect.

Answer this question: Is Calvinism a theological system?

It is impossible to interpret Scripture in isolation. Most Calvinists have no problem with those particular texts, at least that I am aware of. But these texts do not and cannot stand in contradiction of a simple God (as in opposite of complex meaning multiple systems of truth). The law of non-contradiction does exist and no amount of wishing will make it go away. God is consistent.

Again you miss the point here. It is not about interpreting texts in isolation. The point is that Calvinists are forced to interpret certain texts that pose a problem for their system IN LIGHT OF the system and not the text itself. To illustrate what I mean simply look at how Calvinists attempt to define the word "world". With a pending PhD in NT & Greek, I often find it amusing how Calvinists will play semantic gymnastics with the word to fit it within their system.

I in no way want to operate outside the law of non-contradiction. That has nothing to do with my point.

My calvinism came from Scripture, not from Calvin. I did not get it through a theology book. I was a Calvinist long before I was avid theological reader and student. Perhaps other people are different. IMO, if someone wants to study soteriology, you start with Scripture and when you do that, it is difficult to understand how someone would came away denying unconditional election.

Again you miss the point. You cannot seperate the system from the man. The system is what it is b/c of the man.

Election is simply one point within a system. It is not the defining mark of Calvinism. I would suggest if one is simply reading Scripture, they will come away with the idea that they have a choice to make regarding God's offer.

You define man made system differently than I do. I do not believe that taking the statements of Scripture and relating them to one another so as to not be contradictory is man made. After all, God is the one who said it. If you are of the opinion that any relation of Scripture to another Scripture is "man-made" than I will agree.

The moment you use the phrase "relating them to one another" you are systematizing the text. It is a human effort.

Again, this is not a bad concept. All theology is a human effort to understand God. But we must recognize the limits of it.

You want to equate Calvinism with biblical truth. Calvinism is a system that is derived from biblical truth, but it is a man-made system that attempts to explain God's infinite work. For that reason, it has its limits. It may be primarily true, but it cannot be considered equal to God's revelation itself. If it could be, God could have simply handed us the 5 points, and said "This is it."

BTW, I will be anxious to see you prove clearly the 5 points from the teachings of Jesus alone. And no grammatical gymnastics allowed.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
No one is denying what God has clearly said. That is not the issue. If God had clearly defined these issues, there would be no debate. Putting God's words into a soteriological system is systematic and therefore imperfect.

Unconditional election is a clear statement, clearly defined by God. Total depravity is clearly defined by God. These are not issues about interpretation of texts but rather clear. I do not see how there can be any honest denial of this.

Answer this question: Is Calvinism a theological system?

Yes and no. It is a system in that it is supported by texts that are not sequential. It is not a system in that it takes a lot of difficult gymnastics to see it. It is clearly there to the unbiased.

The point is that Calvinists are forced to interpret certain texts that pose a problem for their system IN LIGHT OF the system and not the text itself. To illustrate what I mean simply look at how Calvinists attempt to define the word "world". With a pending PhD in NT & Greek, I often find it amusing how Calvinists will play semantic gymnastics with the word to fit it within their system.

Obviously I am going to disagree here. We are not interpreting texts in light of a system, but rather in light of Scripture. The clear texts provide a basis for interpretation of the less clear text. That is not a system per se, to me anyway. As for world, which attempts at "redefinition" are you talking about?? You certainly do not deny that kosmos has a semantic range of which the meaning can be determined only in context.

I in no way want to operate outside the law of non-contradiction. That has nothing to do with my point.

It does with mine though. When you talk of calvinists who want to interpret texts in light of a system (which I would certainly term differently), the alternative is contradictions. That type of approach is inconsistent with Scripture. When we look at two texts, we know they cannot contradict. Therefore they have different referents, different audiences, different meanings, etc. We must work through these issues. That is not systematization, IMO. That is Bible study.

You cannot seperate the system from the man. The system is what it is b/c of the man.

How so??? That does not make sense to me. The Scripture is what we are looking at. Not the man. I don't care about Calvin. I do care about Scripture. My point is that Calvin is another man, just like any other. His formulation of the ideas does not mean that the ideas are his. The ideas are solidly supported in Scripture.

Election is simply one point within a system. It is not the defining mark of Calvinism. I would suggest if one is simply reading Scripture, they will come away with the idea that they have a choice to make regarding God's offer.

I agree that every one has a choice to make regarding God's offer. And election is only one point. But to me, I think it is a defining point for whether one is a calvinist or an arminian because this point shows what we think about the sovereignty of God. In that sense, in my mind, it is the defining issue.

The moment you use the phrase "relating them to one another" you are systematizing the text. It is a human effort.

Again, this is not a bad concept. All theology is a human effort to understand God. But we must recognize the limits of it.

I would certainly not disparage it the way you seem to have. I understand the limits of systematization, but coming to the text of Scripture and taking the face value statements and relating them to one another is not systematization per se, in the negative sense that you and others seem to use the word.

You want to equate Calvinism with biblical truth.

Because the truths known as "Calvinism" are what the Bible teaches. As the old saying goes, "A rose by any other name ... "

BTW, I will be anxious to see you prove clearly the 5 points from the teachings of Jesus alone. And no grammatical gymnastics allowed.

None needed but time is ... But let me point out a major fallacy. All of Scripture is the teaching of Jesus. There is no legitimate dichotomy between the words of Jesus and the words of Scripture. They carry equal authority and are equally true.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

How can a non-existent person be justified from sins that have not yet been committed???? That doesn't even make sense. Of course I don't believe that.

"To which may be replied, that it is no more absurd to say, that God's elect were justified from their sins before they were committed, than it is to say, that they were imputed to Christ, and he died for them, and made satisfaction for them before committed; which is most certainly true of all those that live, since the coming and death of Christ: such that believe the doctrines of the imputation of sin to Christ, and of his satisfaction for it, ought never to make this objection; and if they do, they ought to be fully content with the answer." -John Gill, D.D.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

 

[Bugman]

John Gill is awesome. Although I have never considered faith as an evidence of elect as he persents it. I will have to think more on it.

Bryan
SDG