Replies

Everyone wants to be liked. Everyone wants to be inclusive. Everyone wants to be in the loop.

And yet the Scripture you posted, Rnmom, certainly contradicts MacArthur's premise.

I think MacArthur is probably feeling the heat from his solid appearances on Larry King where he was the ONLY voice among RCs, various Protestants, New-Agers and Jews, who clearly stated that the only way to heaven today is through the door of Jesus Christ.

Those remarks no doubt have brought him problems in the temporal world. They always do.

And so now MacArthur tries to distance himself from the doctrines he has upheld for decades, and thinks he'll make points by slamming those whose beliefs, though politically unpopular, are based firmly on Scripture.

But the truth remains that if God loved all men with the saving grace with which He sacrificed His Son on the cross, all men surely would be saved.

To limit that perfect sacrifice's atoning strength is folly.

And to deny Christ's particular redemption is to deny the predestining will of God, something with which MacArthur says he's in complete agreement.

With concessions like this one, John MacArthur is well on his way to becoming the Bill Frist among the Reformed.

"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." -- 2 Timothy 2:19

***And so now MacArthur tries to distance himself from the doctrines he has upheld for decades, and thinks he'll make points by slamming those whose beliefs, though politically unpopular, are based firmly on Scripture.***

My brother was recently attended a trip/seminar with MacArthur and he was saying the same things (re: "Those who hold this view often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world."). So it's definitely a firm position with him.

(And I must confess that I agree with him to a large part being that I believe both the Biblical truth of predestination AND personal responsibility must be held together - in theological tension.)

And so now MacArthur tries to distance himself from the doctrines he has upheld for decades, and thinks he'll make points by slamming those whose beliefs, though politically unpopular, are based firmly on Scripture.

Could it be that MacArthur is simply being honest and now better understands the truth about the Bible better than he did before?

Could it be that MacArthur, when confronted with the illogic nature of his earlier opinion, is intellectually honest enough to recognize it and change his viewpoint?

But the truth remains that if God loved all men with the saving grace with which He sacrificed His Son on the cross, all men surely would be saved.

That's not what MacArthur said though.

And to deny Christ's particular redemption is to deny the predestining will of God, something with which MacArthur says he's in complete agreement.

I didn't see MacArthur denying Christ's particular redemption either.

All MacArthur is saying is that God has some measure of love for ALL men. MacArthur was very explicit and clear though that the love He has for the elect is not the same as the love He has for other men.

With concessions like this one, John MacArthur is well on his way to becoming the Bill Frist among the Reformed.

I don't think MacArthur is making any concessions beyond conceding that some Reformed folk do indeed go to far in their insistence the God does not in any way, shape or form have any sort of love for the non-elect. I happen to agree with him.

A good summation of my understanding can be found here.

Dr. Eck: With concessions like this one, John MacArthur is well on his way to becoming the Bill Frist among the Reformed.

Well Fru, looks like I left out Dr. Eck, who also seems to feel that MacArthur is on the brink of apostacy.

Fru, you and nobodysfool seem to be alone among the GRPL's.

I think MacArthur is well on the way to becoming an honorary neener. Care to join him?

But the truth remains that if God loved all men with the saving grace with which He sacrificed His Son on the cross, all men surely would be saved.

Why?

As a picture: If God were on the bank of a river and all mankind were floating by to the waterfalls of destruction, surely, if He loved all (I believe He does), he would save all. Why then aren't all saved?

If God, out of love, chose to throw a rope to every person that floated by, it would demostrate His love for all mankind - He loves all mankind. All one has to do to be saved, is choose to grab the rope. Many do not choose to grab the rope because they don't believe that they are headed to destruction, or they believe that the rope-thrower is unwilling, or unable to actually save them, or finally, because they are enjoying the ride too much to get out.

And still, many grab the rope, but for numerous reasons, cast it aside before they've reached the bank.

If God stands outside of time and knows all information, then he would foreknow those that would repent and believe on Christ (grab the rope). Those then, are the elect. The gospel is made available to them based oh His foreknowledge that they would repent and believe.

Doesn't this explain election and freewill.