I first realized MacArthur’s preference of indoctrination to his view rather than dealing honestly with the opposing position when he tackled Unlimited Atonement. Of the free-will view of “Unlimited Atonement”, MacArthur declares that the view “if taken to its logical conclusion, has hell full of people whose salvation was purchased by Christ on the cross. Therefore the lake of fire is filled with those damned people whose sin Christ fully atoned for by bearing their punishment under God’s wrath.” (MacArthur, 2 Peter and Jude Commentary, 70-73).
That is the logical conclusion.
What I would criticize in this statement would be the lack of distinguishing Hell as not having human inhabitants at this point, lol.
I would argue that the "Unlimited Atonement" of unlimited atonement people is neither unlimited nor actual atonement. The problem, of course, is that no one who holds the view of Unlimited Atonement (except perhaps for universal salvation people) hold it as MacArthur pretends they do. There is a difference in the defining (Unlimited Atonement, for them, does not mean actual atonement applied to individuals...I'd argue that their view of "unlimited atonement" is neither unlimited nor atonement…and sometimes it is not even in the context of penal substitution). So, while I agree with MacArthur’s position on the scope of the Atonement, I find his characterizations of the opposing view nauseating. It is carelessness to the point of dishonesty, which is not a Christian characteristic.
You might consider that MacArthur is, in this quote, focusing on the extreme end of UT. I am sure he, as we do, recognize the various inflections placed on any particular doctrine. If Christ's Sacrifice was actually atoning for every man and woman (as some will conclude, despite best efforts of teachers to nullify such a conclusion) then we see John's statement perfectly reasonable.
And I just have to say, Jon, that it is a bit conflicting for yourself to nullify Unlimited Atonement by saying
"...the "Unlimited Atonement" of unlimited atonement people is neither unlimited nor actual atonement."
Better to clarify the position with, perhaps, a different name. The fact of the matter is that no matter how good the teacher, preacher, or evangelist, what is taught is going to be strained through the colander of the individual mind, and what comes through is often not what was taught by the teacher.
Another example can be found in his commentary on 2 John, where he provides a false choice to defend “whole world” as meaning “the elect”. There are comments that came out of his “Charismatic Chaos” speeches that are just as questionable. In all three cases, John MacArthur takes the opposing view and places it within his own context (and his own definitions) to argue against it.
Who doesn't? I too disagree with this position, where we see obvious statements referring to the world (meaning all men) taught as having to refer to the Elect. But...this is hardly something exclusive to MacArthur, and hardly a reason to justify that he is unfair to opposing views or that he is a "horrible Theologian," lol. If that is the case, and we can make that charge towards everyone. Because everyone is wrong on one position or another and the reason is usually due to the indoctrination undergone when one affiliates with a particular System of Theology, rather than simply Being Bible Students.
Present company excluded, of course...
I myself find both Calvinsts and Arminians in grave error on these issues and the solution is very simple. So unless we can ourselves be fair and point out the error of all groups then we are just as guilty as the charge you lay against MacArthur.
Again, please don’t get me wrong. I do believe he is a talented preacher, and I regularly learn from his sermons. But he is a horrible theologian.
I have some problems with some of what he teaches as well, but as far as being a Theologian...I regularly laugh at some of the "great theologians" here who say...he isn't even a Theologian. The fact is that many who comfort themselves with a piece of paper on the wall are horribly ignorant of some pretty basic teachings of Scripture. And the reason is...indoctrination. And it is pride that will not allow them to even consider that what they have been taught could possibly be in error.
John does his homework. John does the necessary work. Far better than most of the teachers, preachers, and "theologians" in the public eye today.
So is there anything else in which John is unfair to opposing views? It may be your own position on this doctrine makes you a little sensitive to it. The best thing to do in regards to disagreeing with a teacher is to examine the doctrine itself, rather than the teacher. The former is a little more difficult.
God bless.
God bless.