The Five Points of Calvinism

John MacArthur has held to the "infamous L" of TULIP for a little while now. God be praised. Next stop...Covenant Theology?

 

[quote:cb445e7487][i:cb445e7487]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:cb445e7487]
John MacArthur has held to the "infamous L" of TULIP for a little while now. God be praised. Next stop...Covenant Theology?

[/quote:cb445e7487]

Wow, where does he say that? He seems to keep things hidden...

 

Paul for one the link that was provided in the topic starting thread shows it. I first was introduced to MacArthur a couple years ago and just assumed that he was always a 5-pointer. My friends have been telling me its a very recent thing though.

 

Johns position has been that the atonement is efficient to save all men; effectual only to the elect. Hence making the atonement _not_ limited per se.

 

That was a shocker.

I want to hear it in a sermon now......(that will take it another 10 years....)

 

Josh,
This is true; although John would disagree. The reformed community in general, outside of MacArthurs loop, charge JM w/ not truly relating his understanding of the doctrine of total depravity w/ that of the historic reformed.

 

[quote:0b04201924][i:0b04201924]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0b04201924]
[quote:0b04201924][i:0b04201924]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:0b04201924]
John MacArthur has held to the "infamous L" of TULIP for a little while now. God be praised. Next stop...Covenant Theology?

[/quote:0b04201924]

Wow, where does he say that? He seems to keep things hidden... [/quote:0b04201924]

You don't have to go any further than his study Bible notes on some LA verses and his study Bible has been out for some time now. MacArthur is a 5 pointer, Phil Johnson (at his church) is a 5 pointer and probably most or all of his pastoral staff and some of the folks at Master's Seminary.

They are strange bedfellows, but it is possible to be a dispensationalist and a 5-pointer, although MacArthur isn't your typical Dispensational, except in his eschatology.

 

[quote:e698741678][i:e698741678]Originally posted by joshua[/i:e698741678]
[quote:e698741678][i:e698741678]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:e698741678]
Josh,
This is true; although John would disagree. The reformed community in general, outside of MacArthurs loop, charge JM w/ not truly relating his understanding of the doctrine of total depravity w/ that of the historic reformed. [/quote:e698741678]

Total Depravity? He speaks of depravity and man's inability to come to Christ apart from being drawn by the Father. [/quote:e698741678]

Oops. Sorry Josh; I meant "relating his understanding of the doctrine of limited atonement w/ that of the historic reformed."

 

[quote:c1c7e024c3][i:c1c7e024c3]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:c1c7e024c3]
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-11-6.htm

Now if read this wrong or this site lie's than this is taken form the question(fullquestion and answer on the link).

Question

My question is threefold,

1. How can the Bible be read to teach "Limited Atonement?"

2. How can the Bible be read to teach "Unlimited Atonement?"

3. What do you believe that it teaches and why?


So, I would say, that I believe, and I think this is maybe one way to understand it--I believe that the atonement of Christ was sufficient for the world, but is efficient for those that believe. I believe in, I guess what you could call a "Limited and Unlimited Atonement." It is unlimited in the sense that it was sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world--it is limited, in that it is applied only to those who believe. I don't like to get pushed beyond that, but I don't like to just take the title of believing in "Limited Atonement" or "Particular Redemption," that Jesus died only for the elect, because I think that that has some exegetical problems. I think you would have problems explaining certain passages of Scripture, but I admit to you that it is a very difficult issue, because there are many passages that apply His redemptive work "only to the elect," "only to those who believe." But I believe, compared with other passages, His redemption encompasses, in its sufficiency--the world. [/quote:c1c7e024c3]

Nathan,
Did Christ die for anyone else but the elect?

 

So why speculate? The scriptures do not imply that the atonement [i:1f9d12efe0]was sufficient[/i:1f9d12efe0] for the whole of creation (although who would deny the power of God?). Jesus Himself said, "all that the father has given me, *(they) will come to me and I will lose none". *my emphasis added

All that God has given Him...no more, no less!

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

Perhaps this is obvious, but.....

How can his understanding of the other 4 points be solid and reformed, while rejecting LA? Such right understanding would leave him to make nonsensical statements looking something like this.....


"Yes, before the foundation of the earth, God chose specifically and individually all those whom He would save. Though not based on their foreseen free-will faith, and in spite of their deadness in sin and hatred of Him, His election of specific individuals assures them coming to Him by His most glorious and effective grace. They are then justified by His sacrifice, the wrath of God on their sin satisfied, and His righteousness credited to their account to stand before a holy God......Yet, it was also Christ's intent to give Himself up for those the Father had no plan to save, whom He had already chosen to leave eternally in their sin."

Illogical positions like this are why I have real skepticism of any "4-pointer" holding to any Biblical and reformed understanding of Unconditional Election. How can it possibly be?? The contradictions are enormous, unbelievable almost.
Not knowing much of Johnny Mac., I would really question his stance on "U." He may hold to total depravity, and perserverance, and maybe even a close version of irresistible grace.....but I cannot possibly fathom a good understanding of 'U' while rejecting 'L.' uzzled:

:wr50:

 

brother...relax.

Forgive me for lack of a better term. It was a generalization to all whom see the atonement in the way JM does (or did). I didn't mean to sound as if you were speculating.....

You good now???:yes:

 

I guess I need to admit again that I am a MacArthur fan

Have you guys read this?

The Nature of the Atonement

It's Phil Johnson speaking, but he's doing it in offical capacity as a speaker at MacArthur's Shepards Confrence. The speaks direclty on the nature of the atonment. It's been a little while since I read it all, but I remember agreeing with it.

In it Mr. Johnson says, "The sacrifice of Christ was of infinitely sufficient value." To this he offers the following two points:

"1. One, in the words of the Synod of Dordt, "because the person who submitted to the punishment on our behalf was not only really man and perfectly holy but also the only begotten Son of God, the same eternal, and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit." In other words, the person who died on the cross was infinite in His glory and His goodness and therefore it was an infinite sacrifice. That's the first reason.



2. Second, the price of each person's sin is infinite wrath. And if the price of atonement is infinite than the atonement itself in order to be accepted had to be of infinite value. In other words, if you had to suffer the price of your own sins you would spend eternity in hell and still you would not exhaust the infinite displeasure of God against sin. There's an infinite punishment for sin. And that infinite wrath is the very thing Christ bore on the cross. So if Christ's death was not sufficient to atone for all than it wasn't sufficient to atone for even one. Because atonement for sin even for one person demands an infinite price. Now again the overwhelming majority of Calvinists would agree with that. That is exactly what the cannons of the Synod of Dordt say. That is mainstream historic Calvinism. "

I agree with him. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for every sin ever committed, yet it was designed (and therefore will/has) accomplished) for the salvation for the elect alone.

I believe that is what Mr. MacArthur teaches as well, although he doesn't always have as much time as Mr. Johnson to explain it.

Bryan
SDG

 

So if Christs atonement was sufficient to save all, why isn't everyone saved? Because it is only effectual in the elect? Hogwash. This may be true, as I said who would deny the pravcticality of truth in it? However, the bible does not extrapolate in this way.

 

I believe the point of those who say it is "sufficient for all, but not efficient for all" is this:

If God had elected every human being ever on the face of the earth....Christ's blood is sufficient to atone for all that sin. If God had decreed that He would regenerate and save every man, the sacrifice of Christ was plenty sufficient to atone. But, because not all are regenerated, it is only efficient for the elect.

I would think that both Arminians and Biblical theologians would agree that Christ is infinitely holy and glorious, and that God's infinite wrath on sin was poured out on Him....making His blood of infinite value and sufficiency, although the Bible does not ever speak in such terms. But this sacrifice is only effectual to those that believe.

To those who have trouble saying it is sufficient for all....would you then say that, if God regenerated every man, that Christ's sacrifice is [i:27f41f3571]insufficient[/i:27f41f3571] to atone for their sin? Is something more needed? Or is it simply and irrelevant and unimportant question because it is so hypothetical? God's plan for eternity has been fixed from eternity, so I can see the argument that debating that hypothesis is rather useless.

 

Jeremy, your contrast is irresponsible at best. The scriptures DO NOT speak of such an idea. The atonement is [i:9cad0858e4]limited[/i:9cad0858e4] in that it is only efficacious to the elect alone. The speculatory idea is a givin', as everyone (at least the reformed) knows that God could save everyone if he chose to abrogate Hid judgment. But I guess even that idea is silly as we know God is Judge!

 

I do not see what is irresponsible about saying:

1) Christ's blood can save anyone and everyone for whom it is offered. There is no "max number" it could justify. It is that valuable and precious.

2)Christ's death, by the decree of God was intended and purposed only for the justification of the elect.

That is all I am saying when I hear that "Christ's death is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."

No, the scriptures do not directly address #1 regarding the 'max number' part. But, all I am saying is that if God had chosen to save more, additional sacrifice would not have been needed. Christ's death is sufficient to save any and all of those to whom it is applied, no matter the number - even though we know God had fixed that number from eternity. That is my entire point.

What is irresponsible about this? To say that no matter how many God would have chosen, Christ's death is sufficient for their justification?

 

I agree with you Jeremy.

Bryan
SDG

 

It's irresponsible to speculate...........

Brian,
The historical reformed [i:4ed1e9b7e2]disgree.[/i:4ed1e9b7e2] So you guys are [i:4ed1e9b7e2]four pointers?[/i:4ed1e9b7e2]

[Edited on 6-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

I am certainly no 4-pointer....

From all eternity, Christ's sacrifice was intended to satisfy God's wrath on the elect only.....and that it what it does. It is not a 'conditional' sacrifice offered up for all men assuming they come to Him with their free-wills, but an efficient sacrifice offered for specific men.

 

[quote:8f0db00fa9][i:8f0db00fa9]Originally posted by smhbbag[/i:8f0db00fa9]
I am certainly no 4-pointer....

From all eternity, Christ's sacrifice was intended to satisfy God's wrath on the elect only.....and that it what it does. It is not a 'conditional' sacrifice offered up for all men assuming they come to Him with their free-wills, but an efficient sacrifice offered for specific men. [/quote:8f0db00fa9]

Jeremy,
Here is what you said:
"Christ's blood can save anyone and everyone for whom it is offered. There is no "max number" it could justify. It is that valuable and precious. "

There is a max number; the elect! God does not add to the elect as time goes on. The elect were chosen prior to the foundation of the world.....

As far as the power of the blood goes, the blood was shed only for the sheep; no one else. It is that powerful and precious. Everyone that has been given to Christ by the Father WILL come to Jesus. No more, no less!

You say that you are not a 4 pointer.....OK. But you are redefining that which the refomed historically have embraced in regards to [i:8f0db00fa9]limited atonement[/i:8f0db00fa9]. That being, that the atonement is unlimited.

You previously wrote:
"That is all I am saying when I hear that "Christ's death is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."

Unbiblical and speculatory!


The blood of Christ was only shed for the elect. Jesus Himself claimed to [i:8f0db00fa9]not[/i:8f0db00fa9] 'pray for the world' but for those the Father had given Him _out of the world_. The Lamb was never intended for the rest of humanity, so why speculate on the capacity; it's unbiblical and as I have said, in my opinion, handling the scriptures irresponsibly.

Enjoying our exchange............

SPB

 

I didn't know exactly where to post this but is James White's silencing of Dave Hunt in [i:503fb94cb0]Debating Calvinism [/i:503fb94cb0] worth getting? I have read parts of it in bookstores but was hesitant to shell out the money, especially when I can hear him at AoM.

[Edited on 6-15-2004 by Finn McCool]

 

Hello Scott,

You say:
[quote:a345fae088]Brian,
The historical reformed disgree. So you guys are four pointers?[/quote:a345fae088]

Scott how can you say the historical Reformed disagree? Dort was quoted on the previous page in support of "sufficiency". Not only is the document historical but foundational. And it continues to stand, along with the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, as one of the Three Forms of Unity accepted by any number of Reformed denominations.

THE CANONS OF DORT

SECOND HEAD OF DOCTRINE: THE DEATH OF Christ, AND THE REDEMPTION OF MEN THEREBY

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, [b:a345fae088]and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.[/b:a345fae088]

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 4. [b:a345fae088]This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit,[/b:a345fae088] which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.

The canons clearly affirm not only limited application but infinite sufficiency. Now one might argue that the authors of the canons were speculative but one cannot argue that it is not the historic Reformed view or that it continues to be by those who adopt the Three Forms as their confessional statement.
[quote:a345fae088]
The blood of Christ was only shed for the elect. Jesus Himself claimed to not 'pray for the world' but for those the Father had given Him _out of the world_. The Lamb was never intended for the rest of humanity, so why speculate on the capacity; it's unbiblical and as I have said, in my opinion, handling the scriptures irresponsibly.
[/quote:a345fae088]
(1) No one is arguing universalism. Both Jeremy and Brian clearly affirm a definite atonement.
(2) No one has speculated about 'capacity'. The word used was sufficiency and that is the same word used by Dort. Efficiency deals with application which is limited and definite. Sufficiency deals with value which is infinite. And how could it not be?
(3) The recognition of the infinite value and worth of the precious blood of God the Son is hardly a speculative and irresponsible mishandling of Scripture. Is any other conclusion possible? One would think that to be a warranted conclusion deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scriptures own testimony about the incarnate Word.

In Christ,

Mark