MacArthur's Calvinism

Tje line between leaky and non-leaky depends on the audience and the particular topic. My position on LA would lead some to call me a leaky calvinist. I don't think anyone would read MacArthur's writings and call him a leaky Calvinist. What he "leaks" is what most people don't hold anyway, at least as far as I have seen. If that is leaky, then call me leaky. The terms are irrelevant. Does MacArthur believe in Unconditional election? Yes. That makes him a calvinist broadly speaking. That he would nuance the five points is neither unusual nor unexpected. We all do that to some degree.

In the end, "Calvinism" is determined by believing in the sovereignty of God in salvation. MacArhtur and I both do.

 

You've just placed nearly every theological persuasion into the Calvinist camp. There are only a few extremists who would argue God is not sovereign in salvation.

Perhaps we should coin a new title for the type of Calvinism Larry seems to espouse -- Chameleon Calvinism: it can blend into any form.

 

You've just placed nearly every theological persuasion into the Calvinist camp. There are only a few extremists who would argue God is not sovereign in salvation.

Perhaps we should coin a new title for the type of Calvinism Larry seems to espouse -- Chameleon Calvinism: it can blend into any form. </font>[/QUOTE]That's laughable. How can you even pretend that "nearly every theological persuasion" believed that God is sovereign in salvation? Most in fact do not. The whole arminian system is built on rejecting God's sovereignty. They believe that man makes the final choice about who gets saved. To believe that God is sovereign in salvation is to believe that God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation without any consideration of personal merit or choices. I can assure you that the school where swaimj attends rejects God's sovereignty in salvation. One of their profs made a very tortuous address for almost an hour where is emphatically denied that God has chosen certain individuals to salvation. Their attempts to maintain sovereignty depend on a redefinition of sovereignty which removes them from the equatino above. Note this from John Murray.

The Sovereignty of God

Perhaps with all your degrees you need a refresher in basic sovereignty. Don't stoop to this level please.

 

No Pastor Larry, in the end calvinism is the five points. The reason that MacArthur refers to himself as a "leaky calvinist" is that he modifies four of the five points. Since you reject one of the points altogether and modify others (as I understand you), you should henceforth refer to yourself as a leaky calvinist as well (as if you asked for my advice ).

I've always thought that the calvinistic system was full of holes, and now that I see that you and John MacArthur are leaky I am sure of it!

 

This is the classic all or nothing routine that people mistakenly try to pin on others. If that is your definition of Calvinism then count me out. However, that is not most people's definition of Calvinism in my experience. As I have said (for the umpteenth time), Calvinism broaddly speaking is determined by whether or not one believes that God makes the ultimate decision about who is saved.

I think that before you pin this on MacArthur, you should do some more work on what he believes. What I have read and heard from him is exactly the opposite. YOu are the first person I have ever seen try to pin the non-calvinist label on MacArthur. Of course, I don't get out much so that may not mean anything.

Which point do I reject and which do I modify??? I have no problem with any of the five points if they are properly understood. If you want to take the five points and call me a doulbe predestinationist then I will reject that. However, I do affirm total depravity, unconditional election, particular atonement, effectual call, and perseverance of the saints. I do not however let other people (particularly those who don't know) tell me what they mean. You should order the CD from last year's Mid American Conference on Preaching where the topic was "The Sovereignty of God in Salvation." It would perhaps be enlightening for you in many regards to hear a side you have constantly heard derided.

You have always thought wrong then .

 

I would say then that you are calvinistic but you are not truly a calvinist as I understand the system.

I am basing this on the quote that started this thread. MacArthur has a philosophy in which he does not like to label himself. (I have seen a tape in which he referred to himself as a "leaky dispensationalist" as well.) He desires to present himself as a person who is exegeting and preaching scripture authoritatively, not some theological system. At the same time, his self-references as a "leaky" anything are based upon genuine questions about the theological systems involved, not merely a presentation strategy.

From what I have read of your posts you reject and/or modify limited atonement (depending on who is defining the term). If you agree with MacArthur's 1980 post then you must agree with his modification of four of the five points.

As for my own experience of being brain-washed (as you seem to perceive it), I started studying scripture seriously in my high school years. During my college years the controversy over "Lordship Salvation" broke with lots of smoke and heat from MacArthur, Ryrie, Zane Hodges, etc. I read extensively in the area of soteriology starting way back then and have found it an interesting area since. In fact, if anything ever caused me the chagrin to consider dropping out of ministry training it was the fact that men were arguing over the doctrine of salvation. You mean we are not even sure how people get saved? While the seminary from which I hail does have a particular view of soteriology, there are shades of definitions among various professors and discussion on the matter is quite open. We even had this guy named Doran come to our conference and present his here...er, uh, point of view a couple of years ago.
So thanks for the discussion. I'm glad you're fully persuaded in your own mind, but your position depends greatly upon your own personal definitions and understandings for it to be the official definition of calvinism.

 

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. (John 15:16)

Both of you are arguing againt Pastor Larry for believing what the Scriptures teach. Pastor Larry stated in another post that these things are clear to the unbiased, and I believe that is absolutely right. Look at the above Scripture. Is that not election? Instead of worrying about who wrote what and when, why not use the Scriptures to support what you believe? Regardless of whatever else, Pastor Larry has very clearly affirmed that he believes in UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION. Period.

 

In that particular verse, Jesus is speaking to the twelve and he is talking about their being chosen as Apostles, so no, it is not election to salvation.

This thread is about a particular answer that John MacArthur gave to a question on his view of calvinism. So it is perfectly legitimate to discuss what he said. If you want to talk about election specifically, start a thread & I'm sure you'll have participants.

 

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know you meant sovereignty as defined by Larry (or John Murray for that matter).

I was simply saying that only extremists believe in a soteriological system where God is limited and/or confines himself to human choices. Middle of the road Arminianism does not affirm human choice negates God's control.

If you are speaking of me, you are welcome to go back and cite where I have ever indicated I did not hold the theological positions Larry espouses. That is not the issue.

Based upon your username, I will assume you are not putting yourself in the "unbiased" category.

 

I wonder if MacArthur has not moved more toward the strict Calvinist position since 1980? His Study Bible is comparable to the New Geneva Study Bible and even his commentary on 1 John 2:2 affirms limited atonement. MacArthur is at the least a Amyraut (4.5 point Calvinist) though it can be argued that the Amyraut view still fits within the 5 pt Calvinist realm since it redefines Limited Atonement to mean "Sufficient for all but efficient for only the elect". MacArthur doesn't like labels. His church is "baptistic" but he doesn't want to be called a Baptist and his study Bible is Calvinist but he doesn't want to be called a Calvinist.

 

So because I have worded it a certain way, it is not your position. But the verses are too explicit in teaching it.
God not willing to save certain people is what most non-Calvinists reject. You and others seem to think we reject God being "sovereign" just for the sake of "sovereignty", but then "sovereignty" is being interpreted in a fashion that leads to a belief in Him specifically rejecting people for salvation (even if you try to emphasize the choosing of the others for salvation and not the negative flipside), and setting up a system where they are condemned by being "held accountable" for a situation they cannot even help. You have defended all of these points in the past, so you cannot say that is a biased statement that does not reflect your position. You may emphasize the positive, but it is the negative that people are disputing, and which I say stems from reading to much assumption into the scriptures.

 

You are not listening Eric. God does not "reject" anybody for salvation. Everytime you say that, or something like it, you will be wrong.

They can turn from sin to him at anytime they want to. These people are willing sinners.

The negative is being disputed, but the negatives you are presenting are not taught in Scripture. You are assuming that your thought process has it right. I disagree with that. Again, it comes down to a matter of what the Scriptures say, whether positive or negative. That is all we have to go on. I didn't choose how God acts or what he does. I only know what he says in his word.

 

But you as well as every other Calvinist has emphasized a total inability, so they CAN'T turn/can't "want" to turn. Why now make it look like they really could when you on the flipside insist that they can't?
This is precisely why SBC says "Perhaps we should coin a new title for the type of Calvinism Larry seems to espouse -- Chameleon Calvinism: it can blend into any form."

 

It is not that we "want to emphasize" a total inability. It is that Scripture teaches it. The fact is that you on the other side are so fond of quoting "Whosoever will" but you constantly refuse to address the "will" part of it. We recognize that their wills are different. This is not chameleon calvinism. It is simple calvinism which you should know from studying it, if you have. This continues to be the most frustrating problem in this discussion -- people who think they know what they are talking about making statements about what we on the other side must believe. It would be better for all of us if you would let us tell you what we believe, rather than making it up out of your own mind.

 

I agree with Pastor Larry. The only thing I disagree with MacArthur's statements on was to say "Calvin was too hard".( I think Calvin was more balanced than many Calvinists.) I did not see where he denied any of TULIP it was more his emphasis.

Pastor Larry stated,

Yes! It is always frustrating when Non Calvinists think they know what we Calvinists must believe. I only on occasions post in the Calvinism/Arminian debate forum for that reason.

 

You always take words I say, such as "want to emphasize" and then appeal to Scripture, and we get off of the point. The point was, you said they can if they want to, but now you admit that "Scripture teaches", essentially they can't (because "their will are different"). So if scripture teaches that, and you claim to believe what the scripture says, when we present this belief back to you, you can't say that we are misrepresenting your beliefs.

We go back and forth between this, and everything we say is "telling you what you believe" and "we don't know it". This is why it's like a chameleon. You say this here, then when we repeat it "no we don't believe that", then we say "but you said... (or "emphasized", etc)", then you say "No, it is not us, it is scripture", while still accusing us of telling you what you believe.
And once again, you are appearing to speak for all of Calvinism, but many, including some of the others here, don't deny the negative aspects of unconditional election. So then our whole argument (like Dave Hunt and others) can be dismissed because you don't like when your views are reflected back to you by someone who rejects them.
I see you repeatedly affirm that you did not get your beliefs from Calvin and the other Reformed writers. OK, granted; so what it appears, is that you read the Scripture, saw where there was a call to all, and people could accept or reject "if they want to", and on the other hand, came across the passages that appear to teach total inability and unconditional election, and adopted a view that happened to be closer to Calvinism because of agreement with those first two points. Our view is that the scriptures used to teach those points are easily misinterpreted, and to the more hard to understand concepts of how God works in time with election, or calling vs. preterition or blinding (John 6, etc) etc., should be interpreted in light of the clearer scriptures teaching God's offer to all. You may not agree with our interpretations, but then you cannot say we do not use scripture. What you're doing is calling the ones on calling and election the clearest, and just fusing together this "tension", and then, dare I say, "emphasizing" one side at one time, and then the other side at another time. This is what creates so much frustration.

 

I have never heard any Calvinist say negative things about unconditional election. It is a beautiful doctrine.

The Calvinist theologian R. B. Kuiper on speaking on Predestination and Whosoever Will stated,


“I liken them to two ropes going through two holes in the ceiling and over a pulley above. If I wish to support myself by them, I must cling to them both. If I cling only to one and not the other, I go down.

“I read the many teachings of the Bible regarding God’s election, predestination, his chosen, and so on, I read also the many teachings regarding, ‘whosoever will may come’ and urging people to exercise their responsibility as human beings. These seeming contradictions cannot be reconciled by the puny human mind. With childlike faith, I cling to both ropes, fully confident that in eternity I will see that both strands of truth are, after all, of one piece.”

The Calvinist affirms both unconditional election and whosoever will to be both true. Spurgeon was once asked "How do we reconcile these two ideas" Spurgeon's reply "Why do we need to reconcile friends?"

 

You are missing the point. The point is that people go to hell of their own free will. They do not want to do any different. What you "present back to us" is not what we believe. If you don't see the difference than I can't help you. It appears that you, like some others, have determined what we believe and you are content to believe that that is what we believe. We are not content with your presentation.

Let me illustrate. You said above that we believe that God rejects certain people for salvation. That is an out and out misrepresentation. We completely and wholly reject that. Chrsit said that whoever comes to him will not be cast out. Man is "kept out" of salvation only by his own free choice. So what you said is not what we believe and it is not what Scripture affirms.

 

No, not "negative things about unconditional election", I meant the negative aspects OF it: that God does not want to save certain people, so therfore leaves them in this "totally unable" state. They concocted this theory from "reading the many teachings of the Bible regarding God’s election, predestination, his chosen, and so on", and then scrapped reason and came up with these "two tensions", but perhsps they misunderstood those scriptures, or went beyond them in assuming the wrong tensions (Man is unable, but "responsible"; rather than man is in time, God is outside of time, yet works in it, and this we cannot comprehend).

 

I was just getting ready to ask then what is it about our position you argue with, since you insist that these people are free to come, and only keeps out by their free choice. So you answer now with "God is in control", and offer some apparently hard or painful (from what I gather) event in your life. You chastize us for telling you what you believe, but here, you now constantly tell us what we believe; that God is not in "control"; election and calling mean nothing. What is "control" then, that differs so much from our view? How can you make "election and calling" unconditional without the deliberate rejection of those not elect or called? Once again, you speak for "most" Calvinists, but most I see do claim God rejects the non-elect. At this debate between me and a Calvinist, he said some of the same things you did, but then what does he conclude with? Trying to prove that God did not want to save Judas. James White says that destruction is the "purpose" of the non-elect (The Potter's Freedom, p.213,4). This to them, is what they describe as God being "in control". He essentially scripts them to condemn themselves by imputing Adam's guilt so that they wll not come, then holds out an offer for them to reject, then they are "responsible", but since God orchestrated it, this is what makes Him in "control". This is what just about everyone else says (except for not calling it a script, and trying to make God a bit less active in condemnation), but you deny that point and insist it is mischaracterization, but I don't see you or anyone else in your camp arguing with the Calvinists who do say things that way. No, you only criticize the Arminians for rejecting God's "control", and accuse people like Hunt of misrepresenting. How does anyone expect him to get the position right when it has so many shapeshifting angles it is presented from, with different people denying or affirming different points? Then, when we use your line that people only reject the offer made to them because of their freely chosen sin, then we are accused of making man in control. What is the difference?So once again, what is this "control", and "working all things after the counsel of his own will" and how does it relate to the condemnation of the non-elect, and the bad occurrences in our lives, if it is not God ordaining it all?

This comment whenleveled at us usually refers to election by foreknowledge. I have not been arguing for that, and I usually say that how God works things out in time is what we can't fully understand. If the two positions are so similar in that respect, I don't see why they can't just meet there.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt; Our view is that the scriptures used to teach those points are easily misinterpreted,