This video starts out as being consistent with scripture, but then ends with a finger pointed at the Reformed Theology teachings of which John is a part. Not even Calvin believed the extremes Reformed Theology has trapsed.
Robots or Free Will
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
- Status
Hello Brother, I see the words "Saved by Grace" at the beginning of the video, the basic repetition of those same English words in Latin (Sola Gratia) at the end of the video, and then Scripture verse after Scripture verse popping up in the middle/throughout the video that connects what is being taught with the Bible (at those various moments in the video).
You said that MacArthur's teaching starts out being consistent with Scripture, but you then imply that the same is not true at the end of the video, that his teaching, at some point towards the end of the video, moves away from being true to the Bible. I've listened to the video about three times now and I am not hearing what you are, so please tell me what I'm missing/where it is in the video that MacArthur's teaching clearly pivots away from the teaching of the Holy Writ.
Thanks for your help
God bless you!!
--Papa Smurf
You said that MacArthur's teaching starts out being consistent with Scripture, but you then imply that the same is not true at the end of the video, that his teaching, at some point towards the end of the video, moves away from being true to the Bible. I've listened to the video about three times now and I am not hearing what you are, so please tell me what I'm missing/where it is in the video that MacArthur's teaching clearly pivots away from the teaching of the Holy Writ.
Thanks for your help
God bless you!!
--Papa Smurf
Last edited:
Hello Brother, I see the words "Saved by Grace" at the beginning of the video, the basic repetition of those same English words in Latin (Sola Gratia) at the end of the video, and then Scripture verse after Scripture verse popping up in the middle/throughout the video that connects what is being taught with the Bible (at those various moments in the video).
You said that MacArthur's teaching starts out being consistent with Scripture, but you then imply that the same is not true at the end of the video, that his teaching, at some point towards the end of the video, moves away from being true to the Bible. I've listened to the video about three times now and I am not hearing what you are, so please tell me what I'm missing/where it is in the video that MacArthur's teaching clearly pivots away from the teaching of the Holy Writ.
Thanks for your help
God bless you!!
--Papa Smurf
PS, I am hesitant to get into further explanation about the shift in the video because it is a forbidden topic (TULIP) in here.
I think, perhaps, you understand.
MM
Hi Musicmaster, I understand, but sadly, I'm also quick to forget for a couple of reasons, the denomination that I'm in (EFCA/Evangelical Free Church of America) being one of them, and CFS's policy being the other.
I don't remember if I told you this earlier or not, but we, by design, hold a neutral position on these two systematic theologies, Arminianism and Calvinism, at the denominational level, believing that BOTH can be substantially supported by the Scriptures, so we leave the choice of what to believe in this regard to our individual congregants (to believe as they feel led to believe by the Holy Spirit).
This new policy slowly brought an end to the kind of hostilities in our local churches that we still see every day out here in online Christendom, such that the hateful, heated debates have been replaced by profitable, loving discussions instead (for the most part anyway).
I continue to see so much unloving, and oft times hateful rhetoric concerning these topics, ESPECIALLY out here in online Christendom, that I can understand CFS's choice to do what was necessary to bring an end to what are rarely, if ever, profitable discussions.
The thing is, I wasn't asking you about TULIP, I just wanted to talk about the Bible, and why/where you believe that Dr. MacArthur's teaching in that short video stopped being based on the Scriptures (because after listening to it 3-4 times, I simply could not find it). The CFS policy seems to be the only way that peace can be maintained on a forum like this one, but isn't it sad that such is the case
Blessings to you in Christ!!
--Papa Smurf
p.s. - I continue to be surprised that Dr. MacArthur is the teacher that you hold up as being over-the-top concerning Calvinism, because I remember listening to his daily sermons on the radio (back in the days when I was still both young in the faith, as well an outspoken, Arminian zealot
), and I was rarely offended by much of anything that he had to say, especially in regard to Calvinism (if I had been, I would have stopped listening). Quite frankly, his teaching has always had far more of a pastoral, rather than theological feel to me which, considering his lifelong position as the senior pastor of his church seems to make sense
p.p.s. - I also wanted to say that I still appreciate your use of these one-minute videos in our threads as a means of defining a topic and getting a discussion rolling
We just need to locate some that don't lead us towards what CFS doesn't allow
I don't remember if I told you this earlier or not, but we, by design, hold a neutral position on these two systematic theologies, Arminianism and Calvinism, at the denominational level, believing that BOTH can be substantially supported by the Scriptures, so we leave the choice of what to believe in this regard to our individual congregants (to believe as they feel led to believe by the Holy Spirit).
This new policy slowly brought an end to the kind of hostilities in our local churches that we still see every day out here in online Christendom, such that the hateful, heated debates have been replaced by profitable, loving discussions instead (for the most part anyway).
I continue to see so much unloving, and oft times hateful rhetoric concerning these topics, ESPECIALLY out here in online Christendom, that I can understand CFS's choice to do what was necessary to bring an end to what are rarely, if ever, profitable discussions.
The thing is, I wasn't asking you about TULIP, I just wanted to talk about the Bible, and why/where you believe that Dr. MacArthur's teaching in that short video stopped being based on the Scriptures (because after listening to it 3-4 times, I simply could not find it). The CFS policy seems to be the only way that peace can be maintained on a forum like this one, but isn't it sad that such is the case
Blessings to you in Christ!!
--Papa Smurf
p.s. - I continue to be surprised that Dr. MacArthur is the teacher that you hold up as being over-the-top concerning Calvinism, because I remember listening to his daily sermons on the radio (back in the days when I was still both young in the faith, as well an outspoken, Arminian zealot
), and I was rarely offended by much of anything that he had to say, especially in regard to Calvinism (if I had been, I would have stopped listening). Quite frankly, his teaching has always had far more of a pastoral, rather than theological feel to me which, considering his lifelong position as the senior pastor of his church seems to make sense p.p.s. - I also wanted to say that I still appreciate your use of these one-minute videos in our threads as a means of defining a topic and getting a discussion rolling
We just need to locate some that don't lead us towards what CFS doesn't allow
Last edited:
I seem to be in agreement with Papa.
IMHO, I do not think that TULIP is forbidden. I believe that it is Predestination that is forbidden.
TULIP is just an acronym for John Calvins theology...........but you already knew that so I apologize.
Actually, not even Calvin believed in what I have come to call "Extreme Calvinism." Much of Reformed Theology gravitates in the direction of the idea that God created most of humanity to populate Hell, irrespective of personal choice - free will. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Lord is a moral monster in that He will punish all who go to Hell for a choice they were never allegedly empowered to make. Not all Calvinists believe in that extreme, but some do. I know some personally.
So, yes, I'm with PS in that this topic is best left untouched on account of some who are not willing to keep it all on a conversational level. I love exploring this with others, but not willing to divide over it.
MM
PSmurf, MacArthur, like R. C. Sproul, have said in their teachings that nobody has the ability to recognize their lost state, and are therefore incapable of calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation apart from the Lord empowering each one to do so, and that the Lord chooses whom He will empower to seek Him out purely on the basis HIs Sovereignty. Oh, I could go into THAT one in tremendous depth of discussion, but it's not allowed.
MM
MM
I will and wait for the hammer to fall!
That is the one thing I disagree with on Calvinism. The idea that a man does not know that he is lost and unable to come to Christ is just plain wrong.
Hi Musicmaster, I understand, but sadly, I'm also quick to forget for a couple of reasons, the denomination that I'm in (EFCA/Evangelical Free Church of America) being one of them, and CFS's policy being the other. I don't remember if I told you this earlier or not, but we, by design, hold a neutral position on these two systematic theologies, Arminianism and Calvinism, at the denominational level, believing that BOTH can be substantially supported by the Scriptures, so we leave the choice of what to believe in this regard to our individual congregants (to believe as they feel led to believe by the Holy Spirit). This new policy slowly brought an end to the kind of hostilities in our local churches that we still see every day out here in online Christendom, such that the hateful, heated debates have been replaced by profitable, loving discussions instead (for the most part anyway). I continue to see so much unloving, and oft times hateful rhetoric concerning these topics, ESPECIALLY out here in online Christendom, that I can understand CFS's choice to do what was necessary to bring an end to what are rarely, if ever, profitable discussions. The thing is, I wasn't asking you about TULIP, I just wanted to talk about the Bible, and why/where you believe that Dr. MacArthur's teaching in that short video stopped being based on the Scriptures (because after listening to it 3-4 times, I simply could not find it). The CFS policy seems to be the only way that peace can be maintained on a forum like this one, but isn't it sad that such is the case
--Papa Smurf
p.s. - I continue to be surprised that Dr. MacArthur is the teacher that you hold up as being over-the-top concerning Calvinism, because I remember listening to his daily sermons on the radio (back in the days when I was still both young in the faith, as well an outspoken, Arminian zealot
p.p.s. - I also wanted to say that I still appreciate your use of these one-minute videos in our threads as a means of defining a topic and getting a discussion rolling
Hello Papa Smurf;
God bless you, brother. I'll offer my thoughts and hope of encouragement and this is allowed.
In short, and I'm paraphrasing from my study textbooks. John Calvin, like Martin Luther, insisted that some men are elected for salvation and others for damnation by God. But Calvin went beyond Martin Luther in emphasizing more of God's Power and Will.
Martin Luther's theology is to know God through Jesus Christ. His emphasis of the Love of God takes precedence over the Power and Will of God.
I feel if Christians accept Calvinism then they most likely will "wear his label" and accept most of his systematic theology. If Christians accept Luther then they most likely will "wear his label" and accept most of his systematic theology.
So do we accept a fraction of both Calvin and Luther? This makes it a theology versus theology and to me it places too much weight on the believer.
Calvin, Luther and MacArthur were / are all excellent theologians and pastors. But they're still men. Christ is Christ and His Word is perfect. My acceptance of Him promises me eternity.
Refrain from the Robot. God blesses me with the free will to Love and seek first His Kingdom and accept His Promises of eternity.
In Psalm 63 the whole chapter reminds me a world back then and now, both are out of whack. I choose to walk daily earnestly seeking God.
Verse 1, O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water.
In John 6 the whole chapter assures me Jesus feeds me and quenches my thirst. This strengthens my belief each day.
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
I may be wrong here in my theological view. That's ok. I've been wrong many times before but one thing I know is right, which is my faith and trust in God.
God bless you, brother, and your family.
Last edited:
I too, didn't see any 'shift' in the video, but I am left scratching my head wondering, Why put up a video that you know is 'borderline', expect a discussion by inserting an assertion, and then use the 'forbidden topic' card when questioned?
Hmmmmm. Seems to me that you are a trouble maker................Me too!!!!
LOL, it's what a 3rd grade education leads to.
Greetings, Bob.
As a biblicist, I'm left with not having much of any regard for Luther, Calvin, or any other of the big names of recent history as to which 'label' I wear on my lapel. They all had hardline focus on various parts of scripture that met with their agendas, and disregarded other pertinent sections or contexts by explaining away their significance to the topic. That form of protectionistic maneuvering is pretty much the fodder of mere religion.
2 Timothy 2:14-19
14 Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
1 John 2:26-27
26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Men with big names teach lies in the midst of their truth when they do not recognize what John wrote, and point ultimately to the Spirit for ALL the depths of our instruction.
Many a religious leader hates the above verses, as well as what I have written here. They are like Diotrephes, who himself wanted the preeminence and the notoriety. They fixate on some famous name and his teachings, and even teach that man's slant as if their own dissertation originating with themselves. Those of us who have taken to heart John's instruction to believers, we are what they consider the 'Lone Star' renegades, and that's ok. I've been called worse.
Where many men have stated things of great value to bring to our understanding what we otherwise have missed in the scriptures, the final authority is the indwelling 'anointing' within each of us who are born again. Many of those men disagree with one another, and so they can't all be right. Either one of them is right, or they are all wrong. We then remember what just a little leaven does...
Blessings to you, Bob.
MM
(sigh) Ok, for the benefit of you and PSmurf, and I will ask that no others chime in to try and refute any of this with pointless, emotional argumentation, because I will not engage such. That only leads to strife.
The very last sentence is what remains, always in their teachings, vacuous. They never caveat their conclusion with a truly systematic foundation.
Yes, we must be born from above, coupled with the fact that we cannot in any way earn salvation. Yes. Absolutely agree with all that, but the very last statement left hanging, with no qualifications, is that salvation is only by the will of God. That's the cat-of-nine-tails lash that slashes the backs of so many.
What IS the will of God concerning salvation?
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Hardline TULIP'ers will inject into that a limitation of it applying ONLY to those whom the Lord predestinated for salvation, even though the wording in that verse and its context makes not even a hint at that idea!
Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Luke 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
The language in the above two verses makes it abundantly clear that it points to the free will of individuals, irrespective of any and all eisegetical injections some will try and force into the scripures.
Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people [unto him] with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Again, Jesus was allegedly remiss in pointing out that only those whom He had predestinated had the ability to come after Him, to deny himself, and to take up his individual cross in life, and follow Yahshuah.
Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
The hardliners are left with the fallacy of injecting into these texts, and so many others like them throughout, what they do not even hint at.
Please keep in mind that I am fully in agreement that we cannot save ourselves:
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Only God can save, but throwing throwing into the wind of His Sovereignty the idea that it's all arbitrary, and thus making God into a moral monster who allegedly punishes for eternity those He allegedly chose for Hell, independent of any conscience or self-loathing for sin...that's just so far outside what ALL scripture has to say on the subject.
There is another mechanism that remains unashamedly ignored, and that being the Lord's desire that ALL men be saved. The TULIP model tries to color the portrait of God as Him being internally contradictory and divided against Himself not to mention the abject corruption of Perfect Justice.
Does that help? Again, I presented this as a clarification of my analysis on that video only.
MM
You said.........
"Ok, for the benefit of you and PSmurf, and I will ask that no others chime in to try and refute any of this with pointless, emotional argumentation, because I will not engage such. That only leads to strife."
OK. You talked me out of joining in.
But Heck..........I for one love these kids of exchanges. I always want to learn and grow!
Understood, Major. That was not a block-out for you, but for others who are contentious in how they address issues. I just want to ensure this thread doesn't go down in flames because of some out there who simply refuse to abide by the rules.
MM
...
Agreed, yet you went on for another 20 sentences some of which raised further questions, hence the
'pinching graphic'....
Agreed, yet you went on for another 20 sentences some of which raised further questions, hence the
Yes, I plodded forward because of my tendency to try and be not only precise, but to also build a firm foundation for the things I present should there be any questions about the precision of the statements made.
MM
I understood brother. There are some who live to do nothing but argue.
Last edited:
- Status