Y
Yelsew
Guest
If you are not writing what I quoted then who is using your login name?Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Yelsew,
You have no idea what I believe nor what the Scriptures say.
Do you deny YOU said those things?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
MacArthur's Calvinism
- Thread starter Bugman
- Start date
Do you deny YOU said those things?
I have not read much of Gill but if this is typical, I will not add him to my library. This is not even sensical. A payment made in the past can anticipate and be sufficient for costs drawn in the future. But it can no more pay for those things before they happen than it can to rise and fly. This is a man desparate to hold a position, not to do justice to the text of Scripture. I cannot see any verse of Scripture that even intimates such. It is clear that we are justified by our faith. Until that faith is exercised there can be no justification, no matter how great the payment available.
All about Grace
New Member
If by unconditional election you mean God has chosen in his sovereignty to extend grace to undeserving sinners, then yes that is a clear statement. If you mean by UE the Calvinistic explanation of how and why that takes place, you are defining UE within a system.
If by total depravity you mean all persons are sinners, that is clear. If by TD you mean the way Calvinism explains how that depravity occurs and the effects of it upon humans, you are defining it within a system.
No one is denying sinners are sinners in need of God's extension of grace. Those are truths with or w/o the system. The details of Calvin and his followers on how, why, and when that works out are human explanations of an infinite truth. B/c it is infinite, finites cannot fully grasp or explain it.
You are forced to say this b/c to say otherwise would affirm my arguments from the beginning. I have never read a Calvinist who denies Calvinism is a theological system. By its very definition, it is a theology.
A biased person says "it is clearly there to the unbiased"???
In Calvinism, the Scriptures support the system. Maybe we should go back to a basic understanding of systematic theology.
The "clear texts" in Calvinism are not so clear in other systems & vice-versa. Who is the determiner of which text is "clearer"? Again the point is ... Calvinists must interpret texts in light of their system.
Would you say John 3.16 is a clear statement that if read alone at face value would not seem to suggest unconditional election?
I have never suggested two texts can contradict one another. I have suggested there is a mystery element within soteriology that is not as clearly defined as Calvinism suggests. When one is "working thru the issues" they are operating from a certain theological perspective, therefore they are interpreting each text thru that grid.
BTW you may be persuaded that your perspective is wrong in the process, but only b/c you recognize the discolor of your own theological glasses. That is why God's revelation stands alone, but theological systems are fallible.
Can you understand the true meaning of the Gettysburg Address without having a basic understanding of Lincoln and why he wrote the document?
I have never suggested theology is bad. I simply recognize it for what it is ... a human effort to explain divine truth. For that reason, it has limits. I have a Master's Degree in Systematic Theology. I am not disparaging it. But it must be held in its proper light.
According to your own perspective and theological bias.
Not arguing that. I simply love for Calvinists to try and build their system with the words of Jesus (since it is the "clear" teaching of Scripture that every "unbiased" person should be able to see).
MacArthur's words continue to ring true.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
For if, WHEN WE WERE ENEMIES, we were RECONCILED to God BY THE DEATH OF HIS SON [objectively], much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Much more then, being now [lit., having been] JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Faith is ONLY receptive. It is not the righteousness by which we are justified. That is the blood essentially. Faith only receives and embraces it. I can prove that.
When was this done?
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Much more then, being now [lit., having been] JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Faith is ONLY receptive. It is not the righteousness by which we are justified. That is the blood essentially. Faith only receives and embraces it. I can prove that.
When was this done?
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
What I mean is that Scripture says election is individual (of a person) and unconditional (based on nothing outside of God). That is not a "system;" that is Scripture. How or why is not addressed in UE to my knowledge.
The verses which I use to support TD clearly define how it occurs (i.e., came from Adam to everyone in Adam) and its deadening effects (deceit, hardened, blinded, unable, etc). I do not know what verses you would use to support it. I am not sure what is "systematic" about those verses.
To some degree, but only to some degree. The Scriptures gives us pretty clear descriptions of these things. Election happened before the foundation of hte world (not sure how to blame that on a system). The Scriptures describe that it elections brings results to the preaching of the gospel (Again, not sure how to blame that on a system). The Scriptures say that these things are for the glory of God (again, you guessed it ... not sure how to blame that on a system).
But you are using "system" in a sense that makes it appear to be something forced on teh Scriptures by external logic or reason. I completely reject that, as would every Calvinist I have read. That is the part of "system" that I am rejecting.
Perhaps some do. But the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of a proposition does render clarity although there are some who are too biased to see it (for evidence, see Holocaust; OJ Simpson; etc.). It is clear to the unbiased that the Holocaust was real. There are some who deny it.
I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. Again, I reject your attempt to define "system" in the way that you have. I fully understand systematic theology. I fully reject your philosophical approach to it. The proper approach to systematic is a textual/exegetical approach. Not a philosophical one.
Simply not true, apart from the normal hermeneutical spiral (see Osborne). All of us, to some degree, go through the spiral. But the determiner of which text is clearer is the weight of the Scripture and the clarity of the language. I cannot believe that this objection is coming up from you. Calvinists (at least of my stripe) interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, not in light of the system. The system is only a shorthand for the Scriptre that it is based on. I believe your thinking is backwards. You are convinced that we start with a system and then go to Scripture. That is flat wrong and I will join you in correcting anyone who does that. The proper approach is to start with Scripture. That is why I say that the proper systematic theology is a textual/exegetical theology, not a philosophical one. Many Calvinists do use a philosophical systematic. I reject that.
Sure ... so?? A Calvinist doesn't disagree with John 3:16. We believe that whoever believes will have eternal life. The fact is that John 3:16 does not stand alone. It is in teh context of John 3, in the larger context of John, and in the larger context of the NT and the Bible. We cannot simply pretend like the rest of Scripture does not exist.
If by this, you mean that we cannot fully put all the pieces together, I completely agree. But I disagree that we cannot put enough together to see what Scripture teaches.
BAd analogy because Calvinism is not tied to a historical context but rather to the Scriptures. We cannot understand Calvinism without understanding the Scripture. That is the analogy we should be making. Calvinism does not depend on Calvin but on the truth taught in Scripture. Perhaps you are under the impression that Calvinism started with Calvin. It certainly didn't.
Not at all. My point was based on teh text of Scripture, not on perspectives or theological biases. There doesn't seem to much confusion in "he chose you from the beginning for salvation" or "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world." Those are categorical statements that don't leave a lot of clouds on the scene.
Every word of Scripture is the word of Jesus. I am not sure how you make this dichotomy.
I agree.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. This doesn't prove that justification took place before faith. Romans 5:1 says that we are justified by faith. These texts completely support that.
Pastor Larry said
Here is Mac's quote commenting on unconditional election:
Pastor Larry if you cannot read the above quote from MacArthur and see that he is disagreeing with Calvin's concept of unconditional election and modifying the system (and MacArthur refers to Calvinism as a system of logic contra your statements in preceding posts), I think further discussion is pointless.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
The Bible also says that we are justified by His grace and blood. So, which is it?
All about Grace
New Member
Larry,
Calvinism is not biblical theology. It is systematic theology. If you disagree, I would like for you to refer me to one informed Calvinists who defines Calvinism as biblical theology vs systematic.
At the end of the day, it seems that you want to argue that you are not bound by a system but that you are simply doing proper exegesis to arrive at the 5 points. If you are not system bound, could you please articulate what you feel are the weaknesses of Calvinism? If it is not about the system (which I still maintain is somewhat naive in light of its history), then you must recognize weaknesses within the system itself (as MacArthur does). What are they?
Calvinism is not biblical theology. It is systematic theology. If you disagree, I would like for you to refer me to one informed Calvinists who defines Calvinism as biblical theology vs systematic.
At the end of the day, it seems that you want to argue that you are not bound by a system but that you are simply doing proper exegesis to arrive at the 5 points. If you are not system bound, could you please articulate what you feel are the weaknesses of Calvinism? If it is not about the system (which I still maintain is somewhat naive in light of its history), then you must recognize weaknesses within the system itself (as MacArthur does). What are they?
Curious about those statements. The same could be said about the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity was basically systemized at the Council of Nicea in 325 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. That however does not mean that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical theology. Certaintly the doctrine is clearly taught in scripture long before Nicea or Chalcedon.
It is true that Calvinism as we define it was systemized btween 1618-1619 at the Canons of Dort but Calvinists maintain it is Biblical theology found in Holy Scripture. Your logic if taken to an extreme could undermine such systemized theology as, Eternal Security of the Believer, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as not being Biblical theology.. if taken to an extreme.
Well, let's look at what Mac says:
"It might appear that it was Zaccheus who was seeking Jesus, but the truth is that if Jesus had not first sought him, he never would have come to the Savior. No one seeks God on his own (Rom 3:11). In our natural, fallen state we are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), excluded from teh life of God (Eph 4:18), and therefor are totally unable and unwilling to seek God. Only when we are touched by the sovereign, convicting power of God can we move toward God. And thus it is not until God begins to puruse a soul that the soul responds by seeking Him" (Gospel According to Jesus, 1988, p. 92).
"The great miracle of redemption is not that ew accept Christ, but that He accepts us. In fact, we would never love Him on our own (1 John 4:19). Salvation occurs when God changes the heart and the unbeliever turns from sin to Christ. God delivers the sinner from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of light (Col 1:13). In the process Christ enters the heart by faith to dwell (cf. Eph 3:17). Thus conversion is not simply a sinner' decision for Christ; it is first the sovereign work of God in transforming the individual" (Ibid., p. 107; emphasis mine).
"Our Lord emphasized that God Himself is the determinative factor in salvation. We who witness for Christ are not ultimately responsible for how people respond to the gospel. We are only responsible to preach it clearly and accurately, speaking teh truth in love. Some will turn away, but it is God who either reveals the truth or keeps it hidden according to what is well-pleasing in his sight. His plan will not be curtailed. Though the gospel according to Jesus offends, its message must not be made more palatable by watering down the content or softening teh hard demands. In God's plan, the elect will believe despite the negative respond of the multitudes" (Ibid, p. 107-08; emphasis mine; BTW, the first statement, IMO, is the essence of Calvinism).
"If you are troubled by the fact that God's sovereign grace determines the recipients of saving revelation, note that those words are immediately followed by an all-inclusive invitation: "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). The tension here echoes John 6:37, where the Lord said, "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me," and then immediately added, "The one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." God is sovereign in election, but He also issues an open invitation. We must affirm both truths despite the difficult in harmonizing them" (Ibid, p. 111; emphasis mine).
"First it is God who sovereingly initiates salvation ... He does the seeking and saving, and it is He who brings sinners into His kingdom. Though people must decide to follow Christ, salvation is not ultimately a human decision ... If he sought us early and we served Him our whole life, that was his choice. If He sought us late and we served but a brief time, that too was his choice" (Ibid, p. 146; This was taken from discussion on the parable of the landowner in Matthews 20. The ellipsis indicate the removal of remarks drawing on the analogy fo the parable; I included only the parts necessary for this discussion).
"God draws the sinner to Christ and also gives the ability to believe. Without that divinely generated faith, one cannot understand and apporach the Savior ... As a divine gift, faith is neither transient nor impotent. It has an abiding quality that guarantees its endurance to the end ... The faith that God gives can never evaporate. And the word of salvation that God begins with the gift of faith cannot ultimately be thwarted" (Ibid p. 173).
On a cassette tape (I believe it is "Issues of the Heart" though it may be "State of the Church") where he talks about this book, he says one of the problems with calvinists is that we don't present teh gospel clearly enough for the non-elect to reject it. If you have the tape, you can listen to it.
Can we put to rest the nonsense that MacArthur backs away from the truths affirmed in Calvinism?? Is there any debate about these quotes?? Are there more than one interpretation?? The evidence here shows that your assertion of "modifying Calvin's idea of unconditional election" is not consistent with what MacArthur affirms. He seems to have no problem with unconditional election.
The problem is not in what MacArthru said in this statement. The problem seems that you want to accuse him of something that is not consistent with what he says elsewhere. To borrow from your words, if you cannot see this, then further discussion is probably pointless.
As for the system nature of it, my point about the use of the word system is this: I reject the attempt to label Calvinism as a philosophical system devoid of Scriptural basis. If that is not what SBC means by system, then fine. I will agree that to some degree, there is some systematization involved. I never disagreed with that. I disagree with the philosophical issue. As Kiffin pointed out and many others have rightfully shown, systematic theology is completely necessary and should not be set against biblical theology as if they are in tension. That is the problem with a philosophical systematic ... it is too easily set against a biblical theology. In exegetical/textual systematic, there is no such conflict. God only has one truth and it all fits together.
[ August 04, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
Read back what I said. My point is about philosophical systematic vs. an exegetical systematic.
In referring to soteriological calvinism, I think there is a weakness in using the term irresistable grace because it implies that grace can never be resisted. Calvinism obviously does not teach that. It teach an effectual call. I think there is a weakness in limited atonement, though one that is not easily solved. Scripture does declare a universal affect to the atonement. However, it also teaches an effectual nature of the atonement. We are told that some reject the Master who bought them (1 Peter 2), a verse that is too easily overlooked by strict adherents of LA.
I think there are some apparent tensions in the biblical data that cannot be easily resolve by human mind. The free offer of the gospel is one that comes to mind. I preach to all understanding that God is ultimately working that out. I don't understand a number of things.
Perseverance of the saints is certainly filled with some difficulty in terms of the extent of perseverance and the sin unto death (1 John 5). I am not sure how to reconcile that. The poitn of 1 John 5 seems to be that one can sin to a point at which God takes their life. 1 Cor 5 might also indicate this in "turning over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh." Lot was a man who seemed in the OT to have not persevered but Peter tells us he did. So I am not sure what all to make of that and how to fit it all together. Texts such as Hebrews 6 are difficult in this regard.
I have no real issues with total depravity. I think society proves that again everyday. I have no real issues with unconditional election. I think it is explicit in Scripture.
But you must remember that I am not a Calvinist because I have studied Calvin and the reformers. I honestly have not read any of them. My Calvinism came from Scripture. Along the way, I have read some other things from both sides. I will affirm in principle all 5 points. But I define in the way that I believe Scripture teaches (which incidentally is the way that most I have seen define them). Remember that Calvinism is not monolithic. There are differences but in general we all agree on the sovereignty of God in salvation, just as MacArthur affirms above.
All about Grace
New Member
Two basic points:
1) I do not set systematics and biblical theology in tension. ST is the byproduct and application of proper BT. I have degrees in both fields, so I see the necessity of both. The two work hand-in-hand. However, ST is one step further removed from the revelation itself and therefore more susceptible to human error. Traditionally Calvinism falls within ST reaffirming my assertion that it is a human explanation of a divine work.
2) I appreciate your clarification of what you feel are Calvinism's weaknesses. I agree with most of what you said. From all indications, I stand along the same lines as you in most of these doctrinal matters. We do seem to differ on the authoritative nature of the system itself.
Part of my continual battle with those who wanted to equate the system with biblical truth initiated my transition from the world of ST to biblical theology.
1) I do not set systematics and biblical theology in tension. ST is the byproduct and application of proper BT. I have degrees in both fields, so I see the necessity of both. The two work hand-in-hand. However, ST is one step further removed from the revelation itself and therefore more susceptible to human error. Traditionally Calvinism falls within ST reaffirming my assertion that it is a human explanation of a divine work.
2) I appreciate your clarification of what you feel are Calvinism's weaknesses. I agree with most of what you said. From all indications, I stand along the same lines as you in most of these doctrinal matters. We do seem to differ on the authoritative nature of the system itself.
Part of my continual battle with those who wanted to equate the system with biblical truth initiated my transition from the world of ST to biblical theology.
I understand and agree for the most part though I do not place BT above ST properly done. You have an ST when you put the BT together, as is necessary to do. My objection is to the philosophical ST which relies more on logic and thought than on revelation.
All about Grace
New Member
BT is the groundwork for ST so it is a necessary prerequisite for doing proper theology. Whether it is more important or not is left for the individual to decide. I personally believe BT is the more important of the two disciplines, but I also recognize my bias.
Philosophy and Logic are essential components of Systematics. How much weight one puts in the two again is left for the individual to decide.
The MacArthur quote which started this thread is copyrighted 1980. The book you cite is copyrighted 1988. From that I have to conclude that MacArthur either contradicts himself(and as much as he writes and speaks, that would not be hard to do) or that he has changed his position(which is not a crime either).
No, the problem is not me and my desires. The problem is that MacArthur's two statements do not agree. But really Pastor Larry, I am not concerned about MacArthur that much. I'm pretty familiar with him and his ministry. I appreciate some aspects of it and I disagree with some of his practices, as I'm sure you do. I just can't figure out which MacArthur you agree with, the 1980 "leaky calvinist" one or the 1988 calvinist one?
But since there is a free offer of grace, then perhaps the scriptures that are used to teach that God only chooses some and rejects others (not even wanting to save them) are being interpreted by the system, (which started with Augustine, not Calvin, and was probably unheard of before him). The tension is how God can be working it all out without scripting people to either accept Him or continue reject Him. There is not reason to try to go beyond that into a position that raises more questions or tensions.
Huh?
I don't get this.
Or perhaps your understanding is flawed. I have read and reread that quote trying to figure out what problem you are seeing. The fact is, that I don't see anything in there that I don't agree with and I don't see anything that most Calvinists would disagree with though they might word it differently. The only problem is to say "Calvin was too hard" because I am not sure that is what Calvin would say, though I haven't read him and don't really care. I can see that in speaking to some audiences, this type of approach would be entirely appropriate, where his other comments would be more precise. In both places, he affirms that God is sovereign and that man has a part. That is the central issue he is making in that little blurb you put forth and he makes it in both places.
In short, I simply don't see the grave problem here but then my understanding of and perspective on Calvinism is quite different than yours (and that is fine).
I don't really care that much about him either. I have a few of his books and a couple of his commentaries. I enjoy hearing him most of the time. I don't agree with everything he does or says. But overall I have been blessed by him. As for which I agree with, since I don't see a great difference, I agree with both.
Wrong ... because those verses are too explicit. But even here, notice have you have worded your statement in such a way to prejudice your conclusion. I totally reject that type of argumentation. It is useless and devoid of ethics. The position you have describe above is not mine. As for the historicity of Calvinism, its roots are found in Scripture, whether you agree with it or not.
Huh?
I don't get this. </font>[/QUOTE]What don't you get?? MacArthur was talking about the nature of saving faith, particularly refuting easy believism. His point was about the clear presentation of hte gospel message.