# MacArthur's Theology ? ?



## JM

A good friend of mine believes John MacArthur to be Reformed in theology, I don’t see it, but I could be wrong.

How would you describe MacArthur’s theology? It's my understanding he's a dispensational Calvinist, but I could be wrong.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

A Calvinistic Baptist. Not Reformed.


----------



## JM

Is he a Baptist?


----------



## RamistThomist

JM said:


> Is he a Baptist?



He holds to credo-baptism


----------



## christiana

'MacArthur's theology is best described as evangelical, Calvinistic, and moderately dispensational'(Theopedia)


----------



## swilson

I think we should consider that not everyone falls neatly into a nice packaged label-belief-system. MacArthur is Calvinist, Dispensationalist, Pre-trib, no gifts today, and no infant baptism...what label fits him?


----------



## Coram Deo

Sovereign Grace Baptist

Calvinistic Dispensational, Pre-Trib, Baptistic, no gifts for today are Sovereign Grace Baptist....... My Father in law is one...... Except he also claims to be a seperatist so he hates Macarthur because MacArthur does not claim to be a seperatist.........



swilson said:


> I think we should consider that not everyone falls neatly into a nice packaged label-belief-system. MacArthur is Calvinist, Dispensationalist, Pre-trib, no gifts today, and no infant baptism...what label fits him?


----------



## Coram Deo

Sovereign Grace Baptist split with Reformed Baptist back in the 30s over Dispensationalism, Pretribulation, Moral law, and Reformed Baptist view of worship with regards to the Regulative Priniciple of worship.

They are from the Ashland Strain....


----------



## Philip A

swilson said:


> I think we should consider that not everyone falls neatly into a nice packaged label-belief-system. MacArthur is Calvinist, Dispensationalist, Pre-trib, no gifts today, and no infant baptism...what label fits him?



We have a name we've been using ever since the Reformation for those people who don't fall neatly into a confessional category (i.e., Reformed, Lutheran, or Roman).... but the baptists here whine every time we use the term for them 

And MacArthur is definitely one of _those_.


----------



## Herald

I think MacArthur would disagree with the label, "Sovereign Grace Baptist." He is certainly baptistic (credo). As has been said by others in this thread he is dispensational (albeit moderate, not a Darbytite). He is unashamedly Calvinistic. It is on that issue alone that he has appeared with R.C. Sproul at the Ligonier National Conference. I would classify him as Reformed-friendly. He has been a blessing to the church of Christ through his faithful preaching. For many men who aspire to the pulpit he has been a great champion of expository preaching.


----------



## Herald

Philip A said:


> swilson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should consider that not everyone falls neatly into a nice packaged label-belief-system. MacArthur is Calvinist, Dispensationalist, Pre-trib, no gifts today, and no infant baptism...what label fits him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a name we've been using ever since the Reformation for those people who don't fall neatly into a confessional category (i.e., Reformed, Lutheran, or Roman).... but the baptists here whine every time we use the term for them
> 
> And MacArthur is definitely one of _those_.
Click to expand...


Philip - you can call me whatever you want. If I choose to accept or reject the label you put upon me, so what? Whatever the "those" is, just use it in love.


----------



## Coram Deo

A Bull by any other name is still a bull.....  Macarthur has every single characteristic of a Sovereign Grace Baptist whether he admits it or not.......

Although he's dispensationalism might be more progressive then most within the Sovereign Grace Baptist association. MacAruther calls himself a Leaky Dispensationalist......

I hope we are not getting confused the Sovereign Grace Minisitries Formerly known as PDI... They are Charismatic.... Sovereign Grace Baptist are Not.......

Sovereign Grace Baptist are Calvinistic that tend to be Dispensational and Revivialist in regards to what I call 19th Century CCM Music and camp fire style worship.... Most but not all are Anti Covenantalism and Pro Jewish as God's Elect......

Michael



BaptistInCrisis said:


> I think MacArthur would disagree with the label, "Sovereign Grace Baptist." He is certainly baptistic (credo). As has been said by others in this thread he is dispensational (albeit moderate, not a Darbytite). He is unashamedly Calvinistic. It is on that issue alone that he has appeared with R.C. Sproul at the Ligonier National Conference. I would classify him as Reformed-friendly. He has been a blessing to the church of Christ through his faithful preaching. For many men who aspire to the pulpit he has been a great champion of expository preaching.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

He writes some good books that Sproul and Mohler have endorsed.

Two I own include Charismatic Chaos and The Truth War: Battling the Age of Deception.


----------



## goretorade

did anyone on here hear his sermon at his last shepherd's conference...."http://faithbyhearing.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/macarthur-why-every-self-respecting-calvinist-should-be-a-premillenialist/?


----------



## elnwood

If you "Reformed" folks can reject McArthur as being "Reformed," than I as a Baptist reject McArthur as a Baptist. His church governance is independent elder-rule, not Baptist congregationalism, and McArthur probably wouldn't accept the label "Baptist" anyway. The Masters Seminary used to be called the Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary, but no more.


----------



## Coram Deo

I guess that means Reformed Baptist are not Baptist either then since All Reformed Baptist church are independant elders-rule.. Monvillian Reformed Baptist, ARBCA Reformed Baptist, etc.... The only exception are the Southern "Founders" Baptist who are not elders-rule but are congregationalism.......

As for me, well I am Presbyterian with regards to polity.... Elders-rule, Presbyteries, and Synods......



elnwood said:


> If you "Reformed" folks can reject McArthur as being "Reformed," than I as a Baptist reject McArthur as a Baptist. His church governance is independent elder-rule, not Baptist congregationalism, and McArthur probably wouldn't accept the label "Baptist" anyway. The Masters Seminary used to be called the Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary, but no more.


----------



## JM

I need to study church polity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JM said:


> I need to study church polity.


Here is a great place to start...






Who Runs the Church?
4 Views on Church Government
Edited by Steven B. Cowan

Churches have split and denominations have formed over the issue of church government. Yet while many Christians can explain their particular church’s form of rule and may staunchly uphold it, few have a truly biblical understanding of it. What model for governing the church does the Bible provide? Is there room for different methods? Or is just one way the right way?

In Who Runs the Church? Four predominant approaches to church government are presented by respected proponents:

• Episcopalianism (Peter Toon)
• Presbyterianism (L. Roy Taylor)
• Single-Elder Congregationalism (Paige Patterson)
• Plural-Elder Congregationalism (Samuel E. Waldron).

As in other Counterpoints books, each view is followed by critiques from the other contributors, and its advocate then responds. The interactive and fair-minded nature of the Counterpoints format allows the reader to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each view and draw informed, personal conclusions.


----------



## MW

puritancovenanter said:


> • Presbyterianism (L. Roy Taylor)



Who?

Just googled. Never mind.


----------



## swilson

I think the reaction to my comment about us not always being able to lable people's doctrine into a comfortable fit is supported by the 15 different labels everyone tried to put on MacArthur after my post.
For the record, I've been to MacArthurs church and it is not modern CCM Campfire music - when I was there, it was hymns, and everyone who works for him or attends his seminary is expected to wear a tie (whatever conclusions are drawn from that).


----------



## Coram Deo

I never said it was modern CCM campfire...... I said it was 19th Century CCM Revivialistic Campfire......

i.e. the Hymns that most fundelmentalist sing today........ By the Garden, In the sweet By and By, etc....



swilson said:


> I think the reaction to my comment about us not always being able to lable people's doctrine into a comfortable fit is supported by the 15 different labels everyone tried to put on MacArthur after my post.
> For the record, I've been to MacArthurs church and it is not modern CCM Campfire music - when I was there, it was hymns, and everyone who works for him or attends his seminary is expected to wear a tie (whatever conclusions are drawn from that).


----------



## bookslover

MacArthur's soteriology is thoroughly Reformed. As for the rest, he's sort of dispensational-lite (distinction between Israel and the Church, but doesn't hold to the various classic dispensations). He has an elder board, not a deacon board, as the group which leads the church. (His board of elders has had as many as 50 or 60 people on it through the years.)

He, personally, (by the way) holds his ordination through the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA, aka "I Fight Christians Anywhere" [heh, heh]), but his church does not belong to the IFCA.


----------



## Israelite

John MacArthur is a 4 point calvinist/amyraldian

quote 

Look at 1 Peter 3:18 for a moment where Peter reiterates this same great truth of substitution, "For Christ also died for sins once for all...here it is...the just for the unjust." He the just died as a substitute for us the unjust. He took our place. The verb "bore" there means to carry a massive heavy weight. And that's exactly what sin was...a heavy weight that Jesus bore for us. In fact, if you want to know how heavy the burden is, read Romans 8, it says that all creation creaks and groans and moans under the burden of sin. Jesus took the heavy weight of our sins.

You say, "Who is our?" I believe it's unqualified here. It must mean Peter. Who else does it mean? It must mean those to whom he wrote. There is no further qualification. I think it means ALL MEN who are sinners. He took our sins, the sins of sinners and He bore them. 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

You say, "Well how extensive was it?" Well I believe that He bore the sins of ALL sinners. 
Let me show you a few verses that I believe indicate that.
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." God so loved the world that for the world He gave His Son. How extensive was His atoning work? It has to be as extensive as His love. How extensive is His love? He loved the world. 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

In 2 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 19 it says that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself...the world. I know there are many good students of the Bible who want to limit the atonement only to the elect, who want to limit the substitutionary work of Christ only to the elect, who want to limit the punishment of Christ only to the sins of the elect,
but I believe that God loved the world and to the extent that He loved He provided a sacrifice for sin.

I believe that Jesus Christ loved the world, gave a gift to the world, the gift He gave was His Son who paid the penalty for the sins of the world but that penalty is only applied to those who believe.

In Titus 2:11 the Scripture tells us, "For the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation to all men." 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

And again I think you can play around with qualifying all but the essence of it is the same world He loved, is the same world to which He gave His Son, is the same world for which the Son paid the penalty for sin. Hebrews chapter 2 and verse 9, "He was made for a little while lower than the angels, His name is Jesus and He suffered death...it says...for everyone...for everyone." 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

Question: 
What do you believe that it (the bible) teaches (regarding the atonement) and why?




Answer: By John MacArthur
I find in my own mind and in my own study of Scripture a strong case for a "General Atonement," for a "Universal Atonement," for an "All Encompassing Provision." For Jesus dying as the propitiation for our sins--and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world, tying it in particularly with John, chapter three, "God so loved. . . ." What? "The world"--not the elect. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever beleiveth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It seems to me that the giving of the Son was in response to the loving of the world, and that the propitiation which Christ was, was sufficient for the sins of all the world. 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.

Question:
Could you please explain Biblically for whom Christ died? And also, whether all of them that He died for will be saved? 

Answer: By John MacArthur
The answer is, in terms of Scripture, is that Christ died for the world--the Scripture talks about the world. But I think that the way you have to define that is to define it as humanity--human kind.

Question: 
I want to clarify this. Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all men past, present, and future? 

Answer: By John Macarthur
Right.

I believe that the death of Christ was efficacious for the entire world.

And I think what you have then is that Christ has prepared a salvation for every person in the world if every person in the world accepts it. Now, if they don’t then it is not efficacious." 

(John MacArthur - tape, GC 70-9, titled "Questions and Answers -2001") 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

he is baptist (not sovereign grace)

and not reformed

The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed by Brenda Rivera of Orlando, Florida from the tape, GC 1301-S, titled "Bible Questions and Answers Part 21." 

Question

As a Jewish believer I would like to know, according to the reformed view of scripture, the nation Israel is no longer important in this New Testament age. Now my question is, exactly what is Reformed theology? How do they base their position biblically? And where in the Bible does it support that God is through with the nation Israel? 

Answer

You mean that God is through with the nation Israel, where does it support that? Well, nowhere. God is not through with Israel, you’re right; God is not through with Israel. 

You see Reformed Theology, that’s a name that’s a title, capital “R” right? As opposed, to say dispensational theology. Reformed Theology says there is no Millennium. Now Reformed Theology has a lot of good points, they’re really strong; Reformed Theology is basically that which came out of the Reformation, right? Strong in the doctrine of salvation, "The just shall live by faith," strong on the doctrines of sanctification, strong on the doctrine of the deity of Christ, strong on the holiness of God, strong on the deity of the Holy Spirit and the work of the Spirit, very strong on the life of progressive sanctification and the walk of the believer, very strong on the eternal state of Hell and the eternal state of Heaven--right on target biblically. But the doctrines that they seemed not to develop were two: ecclesiology, that is the doctrines related to the life of the church. Luther never understood that and the Reformed tradition has sort of had difficulty tearing itself loose from, I hate to say this because some reformed people might get a little upset at it, but sort of a quasi-Catholic ecclesiology, that is the doctrine of the church. In other words they hold on to infant baptism, and they hold on to sacramentalism to some degree or another. 

So when it comes to the doctrine of the church, basically reformed churches don’t engage very much at all in say: body life, interaction, discipleship, accountability, one another ministries, spiritual gift ministries, you know what I’m saying? They’re pretty much preaching centers where those things that they are strong on are sort of held forth. 

And the other area where they’re weak is in eschatology from the Greek word eschatos or last, the end things. And I think too this may of come because that really never got defined out of their heritage. What they basically have said is this, that the church is the new Israel and they get it out of Galatians 6, a misinterpretation that we are the Israel of God, and they say that the church is the new Israel. Therefore, God is finished with the nation, He’s set them aside permanently, because not only of all of the sin throughout the old economy, but of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ when they did that… zap! they were cut off. 

Now there’s some problems with that. They say that, in effect, to say then that we are the new Israel, we are the Israel of God, there’s no nation Israel anymore. I mean it may exist politically, it may exist sociologically, it may exist in terms of anthropology but it does not exist in terms of spiritual promise. The only way that Israel gets in on anything is to become a Christian and get into the covenant that way. 

Therefore what they’re saying is this, and here I think is the Achilles' heel in the whole system. They are saying, all of the literal promises of the Old Testament for the blessedness of the nation Israel were not literal, right? I mean if God literally promised that He would bring the nation back into the land, that He would bring the Messiah to reign over them in the land, that He would sit on the throne of David in the city of Jerusalem, that they would rule in their own land, that the dessert would blossom like a rose, and it would flourish and so forth and so on, and God would regather Israel from all over the world, and would bring them together and like in the dry bones vision of Ezekiel, and He would breath life into them, and they would rise up a great nation, and they would rule and reign in His Kingdom as the duly constituted nation of Israel. If that is not the truth literally and we are that new Israel then those were figurative promises, right? 

Now the basic problem with that is, all of the curses, which are given in many of the same text came to pass literally. So what we’re saying is what Dr. Finberg said one time in Jerusalem, just after a speech by one of the reformed theologians, who had denounced to Israel that none of the promises were for them anymore. He said, “You mean we are to say that all of the curses of the Old Testament are literal and all the promises can be spiritualized. You see what you’ve done then is, you've used what we call a dual hermeneutic, hermenuo (sp?) the Greek word means, to interpret or to translate. You’re interpreting this part of the verse this way and this part the other way and that’s arbitrary. If the curses on Israel were literal...you tell me were they? Were they scattered? Were they devastated all over the world? Were they thrown out of their land? Were they taken into captivity? Were they judged and are they still being judged? Is life still miserable for them? And are they still, as it were, tugging and fighting against the Arabs, the Ishmaelites, the Esauites? Sure. And if all of that is literal then what gives us the right to take all the rest of it and spiritualize it? 

But the biggest argument of all is if you ask a…and this is the one that you will inevitably ask a Reformed person, is what’s Israel doing these days? What are they around for? In fact, John Stott was asked that question, they said, “What is the significance of the rebirth of the nation Israel biblically?” He said, “It has no significance at all”. Well how can you say that? The question I always ask is if you ever met a Perizzite, a Hivite, a Jebusite, an Amorite, a Hittite, or any other "ite"? “No.” Have you ever met an Israelite? “Yes” Why? What are they doing around? 

My grandfather wrote a track many years ago called, “Why You Can’t Rub Out the Jew,” and the reason you can’t rub out the Jew is because God is not finished with them, and if you have any more questions about that read Romans 9,10, and 11. You’ll find that many reformed commentators who write commentaries on Romans skip those three chapters. That’s true! Because it’s very difficult for them to deal with them, because it says that ultimately that original branch is going to be grafted back in. And it says, "Has God cast off His people Israel whom He foreknew?" And then it says, No, no, no, meginota (sp?), the most strong negative in the Greek language. No, no, no, no! 

So I believe God is not finished with Israel, I believe there’s coming a day when He’s going to regather Israel, He’s going to put Israel together as a nation, He’s going to send the Messiah back in His return. There will be a literal Kingdom on the earth in which Jesus Christ will reign and I have to be consistent in my hermeneutics. I can’t say everything is literal up until there is something I don’t want to accept and just chuck the literal hermeneutic and make it figurative. 

For example, I heard that Dr. Clownie (sp?) from Westminster speak on the subject of Isaiah 9:6, he preached on, "The government shall be upon his shoulders," and his message was is the government of your life on the shoulders of Christ? That’s not talking about the government of your life, that’s talking about the government of the world. And it will be on His shoulders, He will come and reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. And they go into the Book of Revelation and it says “He’ll come and reign for 1000 years” and they’ll say well that doesn’t mean 1000 years because they quote Peter “A day is with the Lord is as a 1000 years,” so they spiritualize that. If you start doing that, I mean it’s sort of hard to know where to quit. 


and dispensationalist.


----------



## Coram Deo

*Shakes his head*

Sovereign Grace IS Baptist...... Not am I talking about Joshua's Harris stealing of the term Sovereign Grace for their own movement....

Aay Crumpba.....

Go here....

Sovereign Grace Baptist Association @ www.sgba.net

or another group

Sovereign Grace Baptist Fellowship @ http://www.sovereigngracebaptistfellowship.org/

They all had the name first at the turn of the 20th Century.......

Sovereign Grace Baptist are:

Calvinistic
Dispensational
PreTribbers
Anti Sabbath Keeping
Anti Moral Law in terms of all 10 commandments
Rivivialistic in terms of Charles Finney and his Music, Worship Style, and Evangelism
No Tongues, Prophecy, etc for Today...
Most are Single Pastor and Associate Pastor denying a Plurality of Elders
Some are Hyper Seperatist

I know MacAurther is not a Hyper Seperatist and he does believe in some form of disparity of a Plurality of Elders, but he fits the dime with the rest.....




Israelite said:


> John MacArthur is a 4 point calvinist/amyraldian
> 
> quote
> 
> Look at 1 Peter 3:18 for a moment where Peter reiterates this same great truth of substitution, "For Christ also died for sins once for all...here it is...the just for the unjust." He the just died as a substitute for us the unjust. He took our place. The verb "bore" there means to carry a massive heavy weight. And that's exactly what sin was...a heavy weight that Jesus bore for us. In fact, if you want to know how heavy the burden is, read Romans 8, it says that all creation creaks and groans and moans under the burden of sin. Jesus took the heavy weight of our sins.
> 
> You say, "Who is our?" I believe it's unqualified here. It must mean Peter. Who else does it mean? It must mean those to whom he wrote. There is no further qualification. I think it means ALL MEN who are sinners. He took our sins, the sins of sinners and He bore them.
> (Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)
> 
> You say, "Well how extensive was it?" Well I believe that He bore the sins of ALL sinners.
> Let me show you a few verses that I believe indicate that.
> John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." God so loved the world that for the world He gave His Son. How extensive was His atoning work? It has to be as extensive as His love. How extensive is His love? He loved the world.
> (Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)
> 
> In 2 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 19 it says that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself...the world. I know there are many good students of the Bible who want to limit the atonement only to the elect, who want to limit the substitutionary work of Christ only to the elect, who want to limit the punishment of Christ only to the sins of the elect,
> but I believe that God loved the world and to the extent that He loved He provided a sacrifice for sin.
> 
> I believe that Jesus Christ loved the world, gave a gift to the world, the gift He gave was His Son who paid the penalty for the sins of the world but that penalty is only applied to those who believe.
> 
> In Titus 2:11 the Scripture tells us, "For the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation to all men."
> (Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)
> 
> And again I think you can play around with qualifying all but the essence of it is the same world He loved, is the same world to which He gave His Son, is the same world for which the Son paid the penalty for sin. Hebrews chapter 2 and verse 9, "He was made for a little while lower than the angels, His name is Jesus and He suffered death...it says...for everyone...for everyone."
> (Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)
> 
> Question:
> What do you believe that it (the bible) teaches (regarding the atonement) and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: By John MacArthur
> I find in my own mind and in my own study of Scripture a strong case for a "General Atonement," for a "Universal Atonement," for an "All Encompassing Provision." For Jesus dying as the propitiation for our sins--and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world, tying it in particularly with John, chapter three, "God so loved. . . ." What? "The world"--not the elect. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever beleiveth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It seems to me that the giving of the Son was in response to the loving of the world, and that the propitiation which Christ was, was sufficient for the sins of all the world. 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.
> 
> Question:
> Could you please explain Biblically for whom Christ died? And also, whether all of them that He died for will be saved?
> 
> Answer: By John MacArthur
> The answer is, in terms of Scripture, is that Christ died for the world--the Scripture talks about the world. But I think that the way you have to define that is to define it as humanity--human kind.
> 
> Question:
> I want to clarify this. Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all men past, present, and future?
> 
> Answer: By John Macarthur
> Right.
> 
> I believe that the death of Christ was efficacious for the entire world.
> 
> And I think what you have then is that Christ has prepared a salvation for every person in the world if every person in the world accepts it. Now, if they don’t then it is not efficacious."
> 
> (John MacArthur - tape, GC 70-9, titled "Questions and Answers -2001")
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> he is baptist (not sovereign grace)
> 
> and not reformed
> 
> The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed by Brenda Rivera of Orlando, Florida from the tape, GC 1301-S, titled "Bible Questions and Answers Part 21."
> 
> Question
> 
> As a Jewish believer I would like to know, according to the reformed view of scripture, the nation Israel is no longer important in this New Testament age. Now my question is, exactly what is Reformed theology? How do they base their position biblically? And where in the Bible does it support that God is through with the nation Israel?
> 
> Answer
> 
> You mean that God is through with the nation Israel, where does it support that? Well, nowhere. God is not through with Israel, you’re right; God is not through with Israel.
> 
> You see Reformed Theology, that’s a name that’s a title, capital “R” right? As opposed, to say dispensational theology. Reformed Theology says there is no Millennium. Now Reformed Theology has a lot of good points, they’re really strong; Reformed Theology is basically that which came out of the Reformation, right? Strong in the doctrine of salvation, "The just shall live by faith," strong on the doctrines of sanctification, strong on the doctrine of the deity of Christ, strong on the holiness of God, strong on the deity of the Holy Spirit and the work of the Spirit, very strong on the life of progressive sanctification and the walk of the believer, very strong on the eternal state of Hell and the eternal state of Heaven--right on target biblically. But the doctrines that they seemed not to develop were two: ecclesiology, that is the doctrines related to the life of the church. Luther never understood that and the Reformed tradition has sort of had difficulty tearing itself loose from, I hate to say this because some reformed people might get a little upset at it, but sort of a quasi-Catholic ecclesiology, that is the doctrine of the church. In other words they hold on to infant baptism, and they hold on to sacramentalism to some degree or another.
> 
> So when it comes to the doctrine of the church, basically reformed churches don’t engage very much at all in say: body life, interaction, discipleship, accountability, one another ministries, spiritual gift ministries, you know what I’m saying? They’re pretty much preaching centers where those things that they are strong on are sort of held forth.
> 
> And the other area where they’re weak is in eschatology from the Greek word eschatos or last, the end things. And I think too this may of come because that really never got defined out of their heritage. What they basically have said is this, that the church is the new Israel and they get it out of Galatians 6, a misinterpretation that we are the Israel of God, and they say that the church is the new Israel. Therefore, God is finished with the nation, He’s set them aside permanently, because not only of all of the sin throughout the old economy, but of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ when they did that… zap! they were cut off.
> 
> Now there’s some problems with that. They say that, in effect, to say then that we are the new Israel, we are the Israel of God, there’s no nation Israel anymore. I mean it may exist politically, it may exist sociologically, it may exist in terms of anthropology but it does not exist in terms of spiritual promise. The only way that Israel gets in on anything is to become a Christian and get into the covenant that way.
> 
> Therefore what they’re saying is this, and here I think is the Achilles' heel in the whole system. They are saying, all of the literal promises of the Old Testament for the blessedness of the nation Israel were not literal, right? I mean if God literally promised that He would bring the nation back into the land, that He would bring the Messiah to reign over them in the land, that He would sit on the throne of David in the city of Jerusalem, that they would rule in their own land, that the dessert would blossom like a rose, and it would flourish and so forth and so on, and God would regather Israel from all over the world, and would bring them together and like in the dry bones vision of Ezekiel, and He would breath life into them, and they would rise up a great nation, and they would rule and reign in His Kingdom as the duly constituted nation of Israel. If that is not the truth literally and we are that new Israel then those were figurative promises, right?
> 
> Now the basic problem with that is, all of the curses, which are given in many of the same text came to pass literally. So what we’re saying is what Dr. Finberg said one time in Jerusalem, just after a speech by one of the reformed theologians, who had denounced to Israel that none of the promises were for them anymore. He said, “You mean we are to say that all of the curses of the Old Testament are literal and all the promises can be spiritualized. You see what you’ve done then is, you've used what we call a dual hermeneutic, hermenuo (sp?) the Greek word means, to interpret or to translate. You’re interpreting this part of the verse this way and this part the other way and that’s arbitrary. If the curses on Israel were literal...you tell me were they? Were they scattered? Were they devastated all over the world? Were they thrown out of their land? Were they taken into captivity? Were they judged and are they still being judged? Is life still miserable for them? And are they still, as it were, tugging and fighting against the Arabs, the Ishmaelites, the Esauites? Sure. And if all of that is literal then what gives us the right to take all the rest of it and spiritualize it?
> 
> But the biggest argument of all is if you ask a…and this is the one that you will inevitably ask a Reformed person, is what’s Israel doing these days? What are they around for? In fact, John Stott was asked that question, they said, “What is the significance of the rebirth of the nation Israel biblically?” He said, “It has no significance at all”. Well how can you say that? The question I always ask is if you ever met a Perizzite, a Hivite, a Jebusite, an Amorite, a Hittite, or any other "ite"? “No.” Have you ever met an Israelite? “Yes” Why? What are they doing around?
> 
> My grandfather wrote a track many years ago called, “Why You Can’t Rub Out the Jew,” and the reason you can’t rub out the Jew is because God is not finished with them, and if you have any more questions about that read Romans 9,10, and 11. You’ll find that many reformed commentators who write commentaries on Romans skip those three chapters. That’s true! Because it’s very difficult for them to deal with them, because it says that ultimately that original branch is going to be grafted back in. And it says, "Has God cast off His people Israel whom He foreknew?" And then it says, No, no, no, meginota (sp?), the most strong negative in the Greek language. No, no, no, no!
> 
> So I believe God is not finished with Israel, I believe there’s coming a day when He’s going to regather Israel, He’s going to put Israel together as a nation, He’s going to send the Messiah back in His return. There will be a literal Kingdom on the earth in which Jesus Christ will reign and I have to be consistent in my hermeneutics. I can’t say everything is literal up until there is something I don’t want to accept and just chuck the literal hermeneutic and make it figurative.
> 
> For example, I heard that Dr. Clownie (sp?) from Westminster speak on the subject of Isaiah 9:6, he preached on, "The government shall be upon his shoulders," and his message was is the government of your life on the shoulders of Christ? That’s not talking about the government of your life, that’s talking about the government of the world. And it will be on His shoulders, He will come and reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. And they go into the Book of Revelation and it says “He’ll come and reign for 1000 years” and they’ll say well that doesn’t mean 1000 years because they quote Peter “A day is with the Lord is as a 1000 years,” so they spiritualize that. If you start doing that, I mean it’s sort of hard to know where to quit.
> 
> 
> and dispensationalist.


----------



## tcalbrecht

MacArthur is affiliated with Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America.


----------



## elnwood

thunaer said:


> I guess that means Reformed Baptist are not Baptist either then since All Reformed Baptist church are independant elders-rule.. Monvillian Reformed Baptist, ARBCA Reformed Baptist, etc.... The only exception are the Southern "Founders" Baptist who are not elders-rule but are congregationalism.......
> 
> As for me, well I am Presbyterian with regards to polity.... Elders-rule, Presbyteries, and Synods......
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "Reformed" folks can reject McArthur as being "Reformed," than I as a Baptist reject McArthur as a Baptist. His church governance is independent elder-rule, not Baptist congregationalism, and McArthur probably wouldn't accept the label "Baptist" anyway. The Masters Seminary used to be called the Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary, but no more.
Click to expand...


Are you sure about that? I'm not sure about ARBCA or Montvillian, but there is nothing in the ARBCA documents about that, and there are some churches that are ARBCA and Southern Baptist/Founders associated, so I can't imagine that ALL ARBCA churches are elder-rule (which, for those who don't know, is different than plurality of elders-led congregationalism).

There's even indications in the ARBCA constitution about ARBCA giving advice at the request of the congregation (not the elders), so that to me suggests at the least an openness to congregationalism.

http://65.71.233.194/arbca/pdf/Constitution_2001.pdf
"The Association will only offer advice to a member church when requested to do so by a
majority of duly elected officers, or by congregational request made in accordance with a
church’s own constitution or by-laws."
"A church requesting membership in this Association must apply in writing to the
Administrative Council of the Association, with affirmation of congregational
approval and the recommendation of at least one member church."

I'm going to stick to my guns on this one. Historic Baptist practice has been congregationalism, not elder-rule. If a church changes to elder-rule, I don't think it's correct to call it a Baptist church.


----------



## Coram Deo

Well, I should I speak for all ARBCA, but the ones I know are Elders-rule.. But I am from the Montvillian Strain and all of our churches are Elders-Rule. 



elnwood said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that means Reformed Baptist are not Baptist either then since All Reformed Baptist church are independant elders-rule.. Monvillian Reformed Baptist, ARBCA Reformed Baptist, etc.... The only exception are the Southern "Founders" Baptist who are not elders-rule but are congregationalism.......
> 
> As for me, well I am Presbyterian with regards to polity.... Elders-rule, Presbyteries, and Synods......
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "Reformed" folks can reject McArthur as being "Reformed," than I as a Baptist reject McArthur as a Baptist. His church governance is independent elder-rule, not Baptist congregationalism, and McArthur probably wouldn't accept the label "Baptist" anyway. The Masters Seminary used to be called the Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary, but no more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that? I'm not sure about ARBCA or Montvillian, but there is nothing in the ARBCA documents about that, and there are some churches that are ARBCA and Southern Baptist/Founders associated, so I can't imagine that ALL ARBCA churches are elder-rule (which, for those who don't know, is different than plurality of elders-led congregationalism).
> 
> There's even indications in the ARBCA constitution about ARBCA giving advice at the request of the congregation (not the elders), so that to me suggests at the least an openness to congregationalism.
> 
> http://65.71.233.194/arbca/pdf/Constitution_2001.pdf
> "The Association will only offer advice to a member church when requested to do so by a
> majority of duly elected officers, or by congregational request made in accordance with a
> church’s own constitution or by-laws."
> "A church requesting membership in this Association must apply in writing to the
> Administrative Council of the Association, with affirmation of congregational
> approval and the recommendation of at least one member church."
> 
> I'm going to stick to my guns on this one. Historic Baptist practice has been congregationalism, not elder-rule. If a church changes to elder-rule, I don't think it's correct to call it a Baptist church.
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Whatever label MacArthur gets, let it be one that represents what he actually teaches. I have always thought of MacArhur as a Calvinst, 5 points. But I don't read much of his stuff, or listen to him. 

I am amazed how people get hung up on the labels. I have been trying to help a person understand that just because I allow myself to be called a Calvinist does not mean I follow John Calvin or am saying I am of John Calvin. 

When Baptists say they are Reformed, what do they mean? Sometimes they just mean they are Calvinists. Sometimes it means they are Calvinists and hold to Covenant Theology. It might be said that they are not reformed in the historical sense, if that term was only applied to churches with different ecclisiology and practiced infant baptism. 

I would say as labels go, I am Reformed (Calvinist and Covenant Theology) but I am not Protestant. Sound stupid? If Protestant means I came out of Rome, then I am not Protestant. The Baptists were never a part of that in terms of baptistic principles. 

But I am Protestant in that I desire reform for churches fallen into error or apostasy. In a similar sense I couldn't properly be called Reformed unless I belong to a traditionally "reformed" sect that came out of the RCC. 

So I just think its a matter of what people mean by the terms they use or have applied to them. 

After all, our confession of faith (1689) is nearly identical with the WCF. We just took the errors out. I am just kiddin folks, don't ban me. 

lol


----------



## JM

Reformed Baptist said:


> After all, our confession of faith (1689) is nearly identical with the WCF. We just took the errors out. I am just kiddin folks, don't ban me.
> 
> lol



Are you kidding?


----------



## Mathetes

I always thought 'calvinist' and 'reformed' were synonymous, but this doesn't appear to be the case. So how is it that one can be calvinist without being reformed?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

JM said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all, our confession of faith (1689) is nearly identical with the WCF. We just took the errors out. I am just kiddin folks, don't ban me.
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?
Click to expand...


I was kidding, but not about the similarities. You don't see similarities?


----------



## Chiefmusician

*Absured*



> I'm going to stick to my guns on this one. Historic Baptist practice has been congregationalism, not elder-rule. If a church changes to elder-rule, I don't think it's correct to call it a Baptist church.



Then what would you call a SBC church that practices elder rule? Do you seriously believe one of the tenants of being "Baptist" is a congregational governmental structure. 


By the way whoever said the SBC "founders" churches were congregational need to do a little more research. SBC churches are autonomous in their eccelsiological structure and it varies from church to church among SBC and Founders churches to whether they are congregational or elder rule. We are part of Founders and are Elder rule.


----------



## Coram Deo

I agree...... Governmental structure does not make a Baptist.... Baptism does.......

Michael



Chiefmusician said:


> I'm going to stick to my guns on this one. Historic Baptist practice has been congregationalism, not elder-rule. If a church changes to elder-rule, I don't think it's correct to call it a Baptist church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what would you call a SBC church that practices elder rule? Do you seriously believe one of the tenants of being "Baptist" is a congregational governmental structure.
> 
> 
> By the way whoever said the SBC "founders" churches were congregational need to do a little more research. SBC churches are autonomous in their eccelsiological structure and it varies from church to church among SBC and Founders churches to whether they are congregational or elder rule. We are part of Founders and are Elder rule.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wannabee

elnwood said:


> If you "Reformed" folks can reject McArthur as being "Reformed," than I as a Baptist reject McArthur as a Baptist. His church governance is independent elder-rule, not Baptist congregationalism, and McArthur probably wouldn't accept the label "Baptist" anyway. The Masters Seminary used to be called the Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary, but no more.


Small correction. The seminary began as a satellite of Talbot. The college was LA Baptist College. It was founded in 1927 as Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary and initiated a separate undergraduate liberal arts program in 1946, when the Seminary became a graduate-level school. MacArthur became the President of the college and changed the name to TMC, then the Talbot extension broke away from Talbot and became TMS. While TMS is sort of under the umbrella of TMC, they are separate, and run independently. TMS is on the church campus, while TMC has its own campus, which is about 15 to 20 miles away.

MacArthur cannot stand "In the Garden." He finds it to be one of the weakest spirituals around. He does like the hymns that exhibit great theology, and knows them and their history well. He also appreciates modern hymns, and apparently some contemporary music, if it's theologically solid. He has a fundamentalist background with a rich Christian heritage. Many still claim that his father, Jack, was a better preacher. He's definitely not revivalistic. Not even close. To use his name in the same paragraph with Finney, unless it's for contrast, is just plain nonsense. He wouldn't stand for Finnyism for a second. As has been noted, he is involved with the IFCA. But he has also had some disagreements with them over the years. The elder board still makes decisions by unanimity, even though it's rather large. 

MacArther is a 5 pointer. Read his recent commentary on John's epistles and you will have no doubt. However, his position on atonement has either changed over the years, or has a distinction to it in which the world is saved in a general sense and the elect in a specific (or something like that). The study Bible does not quite match up with his commentary. But then, the study Bible was edited by him, but most of the comments were written by TMS professors.

He cannot be clearly labeled a Dispensational, though he's closer to that than anything else. He won't claim the label, and has said so more than once. Frankly, it's too nebulous to grasp a hold of. I wouldn't call him reformed, though his soteriology would be. He understands the history of the reformation and loves the reformers though. 

He's not perfect, but he loves Christ and has held firm while battling for the Gospel for over 35 years. There is no shame attached to his name. Most of the things he has fought for over the years are embraced by most on this forum. The major exception would probably be his most recent platform, eschatology. He is also the most published Christian author ever, outside of Scripture. His character matches his preaching. He is gracious, kind and reveals an uncanny wisdom in his relations with others. And he still does hospital visits.

You can disagree with him, and most of us will on some points. But be sure to respect the man as a faithful shepherd who loves Jesus and the church He gave His life for (not that anyone said anything otherwise).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tcalbrecht

Wannabee said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> He cannot be clearly labeled a Dispensational, though he's closer to that than anything else. He won't claim the label, and has said so more than once. Frankly, it's too nebulous to grasp a hold of. I wouldn't call him reformed, though his soteriology would be. He understands the history of the reformation and loves the reformers though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He apparently refers to himself as a "leaky dispensationalist". I guess that means he does not agree with the traditional fathers of dispensationalism on some specific details, perhaps the number and meaning of the inidivdual dispenastions, but he is definite in tune with father Scofield on the matter of Israel and the Church, the pre-trib rapture, future great tribulation, restoreation of national Israel while in unbelief, etc. Most if not all of these are unique to the dispensational system.
> 
> Earlier, his address at the Pastor Conference was mentioned. In that address he takes all non-dispensational Reformed/Calvinist pastors to task for an inconsistent theology wrt election and national Israel.
> 
> It's hard to believe that MacArthur is so theologically naive that he fails to recognize that not only amils and postmils hold a view opposite to his own on future Israel, but also most historic/covenantal premils, who are never mentioned in his address.
> 
> Both Sam Waldron and Kim Riddlebarger have done excellent work in refuting MacArthur’s views.
> 
> MacArthur certainly is to be admired within the "sovereign grace" camp, but he has many errant/incomplete/short-sighted views that cannot be overlooked, especially when he goes out of his way to criticize most of his Reformed allies unjustly.
Click to expand...


----------



## turmeric

My understanding is that MacArthur "came out" as a 5-pointer a while back and got bumped from some radio stations as a result.

 MacArthur singing "In the Garden"


----------



## MrMerlin777

Alot of the Sovereign Grace Baptist that I've met are also Landmarkist in some form or another.


----------



## 44jason

If you really wish to understand MacArthur's eschatology, then study the writings of Dr. Robert Thomas.

[It is public knowledge that I disagree with Dr. MacArthur's eschatology, but I still believe he is one of the most influential men in the world today -- influential is helping protect and communicate the gospel to our age.]

And, on a different subject from above, there are as many versions of Baptist as their are of Presbyterians. Hopefully faithful men of both denominations will strive to correct any unbiblicalness (is that a word?) within their denomination -- EVEN IF that changes the definition of labels.

And one more thing: before assuming that one knows what historical congregationalism really is, one should read the writings of Mark Dever. 9Marks Ministries has really done a good job, in my opinion, showing how that biblical eldership is not at odds with congregational responsibilities (congregationalism). Now, have the labels changed? You bet. For both the label "elder" and the label "congregationalism."


----------



## bookslover

elnwood said:


> He is also the most published Christian author ever, outside of Scripture.



Well, he's probably got a ways to go before he has published more stuff than Spurgeon. 

By the way, MacArthur, long a champion of verse by verse expository preaching, refuses to publish a volume of his sermons, as sermons (as opposed to almost all of his books, which are re-worked sermons transformed into topical books). He doesn't think anyone would be interested in that.


----------



## Wannabee

tcalbrecht said:


> It's hard to believe that MacArthur is so theologically naive...
> ...he has many errant/incomplete/short-sighted views that cannot be overlooked, especially when he goes out of his way to criticize most of his Reformed allies unjustly.


 Please consider the pride displayed in these sorts of comments. Which one of us has arrived? Who, among those on this board, has had as much positive impact on the church as men such as MacArthur, Dever, Piper, Sproul, etc. But each one of these men have errant... views, as do we all. History will reveal where our errors are. Do we overlook Luther's many theological inconsistencies? How about Calvin's ecclesiology? (though some here might agree with it) Warfield? Pick a name. Etc. Etc.

He does not criticize individuals. He disagrees with doctrine that he sees as error, just like you do. You claim that he goes out of his way to criticize allies unjustly, yet you just did what you accuse him of doing. Careful about lobbing stones from glass houses.

You don't need to read Dr. Thomas to understand MacArthur's eschatology. Just read MacArthur. He's said all he needs to say to make himself clear. His recent book, _Because the Time is Near _is an abridgment of his Revelation commentary. That'll give you all you need to know.

MacArthur's first couple of commentaries were basically reworks of his sermons. But he's gotten further from that as he's written more.


Joshua - Very well said.


----------



## Ivan

Wannabee said:


> Joshua - Very well said.


----------



## Herald

> Yeah, MacArthur has his issues...but he's got the gospel right. It's also the case that humans make error. GASP! Even pastors and theologians. Can they not change their minds? Sheesh. Are you the final arbiter of what is or is not biblical teaching? I don't think so. The fact that you would place John MacArthur as a false teacher, alongside people like Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar, et al makes me wonder if you're like those folks from "Outside the Camp" who place mean like the Puritan Thomas Boston in the heresy file.
> 
> John MacAthur a false teacher? Come on, Man.



Josh - word up!


----------



## Pilgrim

Few "sovereign grace" baptists I know of would accept the dispensational label. Most are A-mil and lean toward some form of NCT. Sovereign grace vs. Reformed Baptist usually comes down to the sabbath issue. But maybe the ones you know are more dispensational. 



thunaer said:


> A Bull by any other name is still a bull.....  Macarthur has every single characteristic of a Sovereign Grace Baptist whether he admits it or not.......
> 
> Although he's dispensationalism might be more progressive then most within the Sovereign Grace Baptist association. MacAruther calls himself a Leaky Dispensationalist......
> 
> I hope we are not getting confused the Sovereign Grace Minisitries Formerly known as PDI... They are Charismatic.... Sovereign Grace Baptist are Not.......
> 
> Sovereign Grace Baptist are Calvinistic that tend to be Dispensational and Revivialist in regards to what I call 19th Century CCM Music and camp fire style worship.... Most but not all are Anti Covenantalism and Pro Jewish as God's Elect......
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think MacArthur would disagree with the label, "Sovereign Grace Baptist." He is certainly baptistic (credo). As has been said by others in this thread he is dispensational (albeit moderate, not a Darbytite). He is unashamedly Calvinistic. It is on that issue alone that he has appeared with R.C. Sproul at the Ligonier National Conference. I would classify him as Reformed-friendly. He has been a blessing to the church of Christ through his faithful preaching. For many men who aspire to the pulpit he has been a great champion of expository preaching.
Click to expand...


----------



## tcalbrecht

Wannabee said:


> Please consider the pride displayed in these sorts of comments. Which one of us has arrived?



It seems clear to me, and to folks like Waldron and Riddlebarger, that MacArthur is either naïve wrt the dispensational view of Israel and non-dispensationalists, or he was purposely misrepresenting the “premillennial view”. (As I said, he never even mentions Reformed historic premils who mostly disagree with his views on future Israel.) He tried to paint it as an amil/premil debate, but it is not. It is dispensational vs. non-dispensational, at least the way he articulated it. 

Do you think he was being honest and fair to the opposing position(s)?

I listen to a lot of MacArthur on my drive to work each day. I have noted that when he is preaching of things like the doctrines of grace, he is generally right on. But when he gets into the area of eschatology, he is often confusing in his speech and misrepresents the Scriptures that alleged prove his position. I heard him not too long ago preaching on 1 Cor. 15, trying his hardest to be faithful to the text while still holding to his erroneous view of the pre-trib rapture. It’s obvious you cannot make the case from that text (or any other), but he ended up being more faithful to his theology than to the Bible. 

BTW, this is not about, pride, “arriving”, etc, so I’ll try not to take this personally, as you seem to have done wrt MacArthur’s teaching. I was criticizing MacArthur’s theology and message, not the man. Just because he is the man who (perhaps uniquely) holds these views, does not mean it is a personal attack.


----------



## Israelite

Hi Joshua, 

YOU SAID:
Hey, Chris. Why not go ahead and call him what you really think he is...you know, a pet term of yours for folks like He and Piper: "False Teacher", I seem to recall. From yourWebsite, "False Teachers Exposed":

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John MacArthur and John Piper are false teachers, they pervert the gospel.

John Piper says:
"We are not saying that final salvation is unconditional. It is not. We must meet the condition of faith in Christ in order to inherit eternal life"

John Piper says:
"Not everybody is saved from God's wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition, summed up here as repentance and faith, is conversion and that conversion is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist."

John Piper says:
"When the Old Testament says that covenant-keeping is the condition for receiving God's lovingkindness, that's what it meant."

John Piper says:
"But if "salvation" refers to our future deliverance from the wrath of God at the judgment and entrance into eternal life, then yes, conversion is a condition of salvation. When we cry, `What must I do to be saved?" we are asking how to be forgiven for sin, and have fellowship with God and escape from the wrath to come. The answer is always, Meet the condition: Be converted!"

John Piper Says:
But there are cherished parts of our salvation that are conditional. The condition of justification is faith. "A man is justified by faith apart form works of the Law" (Romans 3:28; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:24). The condition of sanctification is also faith. "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by...faith in the truth" (2 Thessalonians 2:13). The condition of final glorification is persevering in this same faith and hope. "[God will] present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel" (Colossians 1:22-23)

There is a real condition that has to be met for justification - namely faith in Jesus Christ. And there are real conditions that have to be met for damnation, namely, hardness and unbelief. There is a real choice that we make which unites us with Christ so that we are clothed with his righteousness and have eternal life. And there is real choice that we make - in Adam and in ourselves - which is resistant to the truth and deserving of condemnation

But God says:
Romans 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"

Romans 4:25 "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

Romans 5:8-11 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. (10) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (11) And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

Hebrews 10:10-14 "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: (12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; (13) From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. (14) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

John MacArthur writes:
“The believing sinner is justified by righteousness infused into him” 
(Justification, 122).

John MacArthur also writes:
”The word justification is a technical term that refers to our legal standing before God: We have been declared to be just because of our faith. [This is not the Biblical or Protestant view.] But the word [justification] also embraces a radical and real transformation. Our moral character has been altered eternally through regeneration. Justification by faith means that God has both declared us righteous and made us righteous. We have been regenerated - made new by faith.... Justification is not only a state of being righteous; it is actual regeneration. We are made righteous by faith” (Justification, 132).

i have already shown countless quotes from MacArthur showing that he does not understand, or preach the truth about what Christ has done for his people.
yet why do you ignore these quotes?
-----------------------------------------------------------------


You wrote:

Furthermore, in his study Bible on I John 2:2 he writes (my emphasis):
for the whole world. This is a generic term, referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general. Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who would repent and believe. A number of Scriptures indicate that Christ died for the world (John 1:29; 3:16; 6:51; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9). Most of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own sins, so they could not have been paid for by Christ. The passages which speak of Christ's dying for the whole world must be understood to refer to mankind in general (as in Titus 2:11). "World" indicates the sphere, the beings toward whom God seeks reconciliation and has provided propitiation. God has mitigated His wrath on sinners temporarily, by letting them live and enjoy earthly life (see note on 1 Tim. 4:10). In that sense, Christ has provided a brief, temporal propitiation for the whole world. But He actually satisfied fully the wrath of God eternally only for the elect who believe. Christ's death in itself had unlimited and infinite value because He is Holy God. Thus His sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all whom God brings to faith. But the actual satisfaction and atonement was made only for those who believe.

If you read what he wrote very carefully along with the below quotes you will HAVE to see, that John MacArthur like many "calvinists" believe in salvation conditioned on faith.

John MacArthur in his won words:
Look at 1 Peter 3:18 for a moment where Peter reiterates this same great truth of substitution, "For Christ also died for sins once for all...here it is...the just for the unjust." He the just died as a substitute for us the unjust. He took our place. The verb "bore" there means to carry a massive heavy weight. And that's exactly what sin was...a heavy weight that Jesus bore for us. In fact, if you want to know how heavy the burden is, read Romans 8, it says that all creation creaks and groans and moans under the burden of sin. Jesus took the heavy weight of our sins.

You say, "Who is our?" I believe it's unqualified here. It must mean Peter. Who else does it mean? It must mean those to whom he wrote. There is no further qualification. I think it means ALL MEN who are sinners. He took our sins, the sins of sinners and He bore them. 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

You say, "Well how extensive was it?" Well I believe that He bore the sins of ALL sinners. 
Let me show you a few verses that I believe indicate that.
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." God so loved the world that for the world He gave His Son. How extensive was His atoning work? It has to be as extensive as His love. How extensive is His love? He loved the world. 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

In 2 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 19 it says that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself...the world. I know there are many good students of the Bible who want to limit the atonement only to the elect, who want to limit the substitutionary work of Christ only to the elect, who want to limit the punishment of Christ only to the sins of the elect,
but I believe that God loved the world and to the extent that He loved He provided a sacrifice for sin.

In 1 Timothy 2:6 it says He gave Himself a ransom for all.

In Second Timothy 4:10 it says He is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. There is a sense in which He has shown Himself, at least on the physical level, to be a Savior of all men, and that becomes reality on the spiritual level to those who believe. So when people say, as I was asked Friday night and I was out signing autographs at a Christian bookstore, they were asking me, "What do you believe about the atonement?" I believe that Jesus' death was sufficient for the world but efficient for the elect...those who believe. 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

I believe that Jesus Christ loved the world, gave a gift to the world, the gift He gave was His Son who paid the penalty for the sins of the world but that penalty is only applied to those who believe.

In Titus 2:11 the Scripture tells us, "For the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation to all men." 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

And again I think you can play around with qualifying all but the essence of it is the same world He loved, is the same world to which He gave His Son, is the same world for which the Son paid the penalty for sin. Hebrews chapter 2 and verse 9, "He was made for a little while lower than the angels, His name is Jesus and He suffered death...it says...for everyone...for everyone." 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

First John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but for those of the whole world."

First John 4:9, "By this the love of God was manifested in us that God sent His only begotten Son into the world to be the propitiation for our sins," verse 10 says. And again it's tied in with His love. He loved the world, He sent His Son to the world. His Son paid the penalty for the sins of the world. So I believe that's what Peter is saying. In the little word "our" is embodied an extensive provision, a sacrifice that pays the price for the sins of all men in the sufficient sense. But it's only applied to those who believe.

Now here's the point. The point is this, that God provides a provision for all the people except the disobedient ones. And so what you have here is a universal atonement that's only applied to those who obey. 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)


Look above at what John MacArthur has said: 

QUOTE - "AND SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT THAT'S ONLY APPLIED TO THOSE WHO OBEY."

That's a perfect analogy really to New Testament atonement. Christ provides a total provision that is only applied to those who believe. Universal provision with particular application. When it says that Christ bore our sins, I believe He bore all the sins of all sinners but that doesn't do them any good unless in obedience they believe. 
(Series: Through Suffering to Triumph - The Suffering Jesus: Our Substitute and Shepherd)

John Macarthur does NOT believe that the atoning blood of Christ is enough for salvation for he believes multitudes for whom Christ shed his blood will spend an eternity in hell because as John says they did not "accept Jesus".(he useS the "accept Jesus" PHRASE ALOT)

As one man has rightly said:

The preaching of the true gospel does not offer a salvation to sinners if the sinners would only do their part. 

The preaching of the true gospel is an unconditional promise of salvation that is conditioned on the work of Christ alone. 

God's covenant of grace is not a conditional covenant. 

It is a sure and certain covenant that ensures the salvation of all whom God gave to Christ. 

It is based on the finished, efficacious work of Christ. 

God is not waiting for the sinner to respond before He can do His saving work. 

God saves unconditionally. 

And when He saves His people, He causes them to believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on Christ and to repent of ever thinking that salvation was conditioned on themselves. 


Question 
"How do I know the Will of God for my life?"

Answer by John MacArthur:
The first thing you do is to go to the Bible. Sound reasonable?
You go to the Bible and find out what the Will of God is. Good, let's look very quickly.
1Timothy, chapter 2, verses 3 and 4, and I will quote it from the King James Version, verse 3 and 4, "God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." The first thing that God wills, is that you be what? Saved. You be saved. Do you want to do the will of God? Then get saved, come to Christ. 
(John MacArthur - tape, GC 70-9, titled "Questions and Answers -2001") 


it get's worse:

Question: 
What do you believe that it (the bible) teaches (regarding the atonement) and why?

Answer: By John MacArthur
I find in my own mind and in my own study of Scripture a strong case for a "General Atonement," for a "Universal Atonement," for an "All Encompassing Provision." For Jesus dying as the propitiation for our sins--and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world, tying it in particularly with John, chapter three, "God so loved. . . ." What? "The world"--not the elect. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever beleiveth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It seems to me that the giving of the Son was in response to the loving of the world, and that the propitiation which Christ was, was sufficient for the sins of all the world. 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.

Question:
Could you please explain Biblically for whom Christ died? And also, whether all of them that He died for will be saved? 


Answer: By John MacArthur
The answer is, in terms of Scripture, is that Christ died for the world--the Scripture talks about the world. But I think that the way you have to define that is to define it as humanity--human kind.

Question:
Do you hold to "Limited Atonement"--that Jesus Christ did not suffer, substitutionarily, on the cross, for the sins of the whole world? 

Answer: By John Macarthur
Yes. But don't go out and say "John MacArthur advocates 'Limited Atonement,' because I don't. 

wow - have you ever seen such blatant double talk?

Question: 
I want to clarify this. Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all men past, present, and future? 

Answer: By John Macarthur
Right.

I believe that the death of Christ was efficacious for the entire world.

And I think what you have then is that Christ has prepared a salvation for every person in the world if every person in the world accepts it. Now, if they don’t then it is not efficacious.

Joshua, do you believe God saved you conditioned on your faith?

do you believe justification is conditioned on faith?

do you believe that believing Christ shed his blood for those in hell but it isn't efficacious unless one meets the condition of faith is heresy or orthodox?


You said:
Oh, all this helps me to understand why you would accuse faithful Reformed denominations, say -- I dunno -- like the OPC, of purporting heresy.

and the funny thing is, i took a direct quote from the opc official website with a link to the article showing their perverse blasphemous view that Christ apparently in some sense died for the reprobate and you deleted it. NOTE: i'm only mentioning this because you brought it up in this thread, i was happy to not say anything more about the opc, that is all i want to say about the opc.

Yeah, MacArthur has his issues...but he's got the gospel right. 

well, if you share the same gospel definition as him, then according to you yes he has, but his gospel is another gospel.


You said:
It's also the case that humans make error. GASP! 

ofcourse, but this isn't an excuse to say that a bible teacher can preach an accursed gospel and not be accursed just because he is a fallible man.

God says:
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

John 8:32 And ye shall *know the truth,* and the truth shall make you free.



Even pastors and theologians. Can they not change their minds? Sheesh.

yes they can change their mind on the gospel, from believing the false to the true, and with this they'll count their former beliefs as blasphemous dung as the apostle Paul did that he may win Christ as he says. MacArthur hasn't changed his gospel in all his years, it's still the same.

You said:
 are you the final arbiter of what is or is not biblical teaching? I don't think so. The fact that you would place John MacArthur as a false teacher, alongside people like Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar. 

I believe your error in this regard is that you are not looking at the fact that Christ said that wolves come in sheeps clothing, Kenneth Copeland is a wolf in wolfs clothing, Benny Hinn isn't a wolf in sheeps clothing, he's just a wolf dressed as a wolf, their folly is evident to all men, even pagans.

John MacArthur and John Piper on the other hand preach ALOT of truth, and sneek in their subtle heresies as you have read above, also if you read the quotes i have shown and STILL think they aren't/haven't preached heresy then there is nothing more i could say to convince you.
the evidence is right there for all to see.


Galatians 1:8-9 
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

My final point is this, if any preacher perverts the truth of what Christ accomplished on the cross for His chosen people alone, then one has perverted the gospel, and changed the truth into a lie. as Jesus said "a little leaven leavens the whole lump."


----------



## 44jason

What I meant by read Dr. Thomas is that you will understand more about Dr. Mac's theology. In fact, you may find where he got his material for sermons, commentaries, etc.

And I don't say that in a pejorative way, I just mean that Dr. Thomas has written more extensively on the subject in question. And Dr. Thomas and Dr. Mac are in agreement. In fact, I asked Dr. Thomas, while at the Shepherd's Conf. this year after Dr. Mac preached the sermon mentioned in a comment above, if there was a name or label for what he and Dr. Mac believed about eschatology. He laughed and said, "No."


----------



## Ivan

Israelite said:


> My final point is this, if any preacher perverts the truth of what Christ accomplished on the cross for His chosen people alone, then one has perverted the gospel, and changed the truth into a lie. as Jesus said "a little leaven leavens the whole lump."



Not to hijack the thread but what is your opinion of Spurgeon?


----------



## Wannabee

tcalbrecht said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please consider the pride displayed in these sorts of comments. Which one of us has arrived?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems clear to me, and to folks like Waldron and Riddlebarger, that MacArthur is either naïve wrt the dispensational view of Israel and non-dispensationalists, or he was purposely misrepresenting the “premillennial view”. (As I said, he never even mentions Reformed historic premils who mostly disagree with his views on future Israel.) He tried to paint it as an amil/premil debate, but it is not. It is dispensational vs. non-dispensational, at least the way he articulated it.
> 
> Do you think he was being honest and fair to the opposing position(s)?
> 
> I listen to a lot of MacArthur on my drive to work each day. I have noted that when he is preaching of things like the doctrines of grace, he is generally right on. But when he gets into the area of eschatology, he is often confusing in his speech and misrepresents the Scriptures that alleged prove his position. I heard him not too long ago preaching on 1 Cor. 15, trying his hardest to be faithful to the text while still holding to his erroneous view of the pre-trib rapture. It’s obvious you cannot make the case from that text (or any other), but he ended up being more faithful to his theology than to the Bible.
> 
> BTW, this is not about, pride, “arriving”, etc, so I’ll try not to take this personally, as you seem to have done wrt MacArthur’s teaching. I was criticizing MacArthur’s theology and message, not the man. Just because he is the man who (perhaps uniquely) holds these views, does not mean it is a personal attack.
Click to expand...

Nor do I want you to take it presonally. But your comments were a personal attack, whether you meant to or not. To say that one's views cannot be overlooked is very personal. To claim that he is naive is very personal. To say he's short sighted is very personal. To accuse him of criticizing his allies unjustly is very personal. 
I realize that many amils felt they have been misrepresented. As I shared with an amil at the conference, that doesn't surprise me. I don't think I've ever heard an amil represent MacArthur's version of dispensationalism responsibly either. It's hard to get into another's mind when your system is different. Much of it has to do with hermeneutics and presuppositions. When I try to understand some of the covenantal aspects of the theology espoused on this board it makes my brain hurt. I just can't get there from here. In this we should agree to hold firm on the majors and display grace on the minors. It's this sort of attitude that makes Sproul and MacArthur (for example) such a great combination when they share a platform.



44jason said:


> What I meant by read Dr. Thomas is that you will understand more about Dr. Mac's theology. In fact, you may find where he got his material for sermons, commentaries, etc.
> 
> And I don't say that in a pejorative way, I just mean that Dr. Thomas has written more extensively on the subject in question. And Dr. Thomas and Dr. Mac are in agreement. In fact, I asked Dr. Thomas, while at the Shepherd's Conf. this year after Dr. Mac preached the sermon mentioned in a comment above, if there was a name or label for what he and Dr. Mac believed about eschatology. He laughed and said, "No."


Now that doesn't surprise me at all. Dr. Thomas was one of Dr. MacArthur's professors. Since you met him, you know he's a kind old man. He has influenced Dr. MacArthur immensely, so your comment is probably pretty accurate. I got to take NT Introduction from him. He's sharp, and has forgotten more than I'll ever know. He's sold out on textual criticism, but very gracious about it. Him and Sturz used to invite each other to teach their classes for a day so the students could hear the other side of the argument. 



As for Israelite's comments - it seems that someone is on a mission.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Wannabee said:


> Nor do I want you to take it presonally. But your comments were a personal attack, whether you meant to or not. To say that one's views cannot be overlooked is very personal. To claim that he is naive is very personal. To say he's short sighted is very personal. To accuse him of criticizing his allies unjustly is very personal.
> I realize that many amils felt they have been misrepresented. As I shared with an amil at the conference, that doesn't surprise me. I don't think I've ever heard an amil represent MacArthur's version of dispensationalism responsibly either. It's hard to get into another's mind when your system is different. Much of it has to do with hermeneutics and presuppositions. When I try to understand some of the covenantal aspects of the theology espoused on this board it makes my brain hurt. I just can't get there from here. In this we should agree to hold firm on the majors and display grace on the minors. It's this sort of attitude that makes Sproul and MacArthur (for example) such a great combination when they share a platform.


Well, if what I’m doing in criticizing MacArthur’s perspective on his non-dispensational Reformed brethren is personal, then certainly MacArthur’s comments are also personal. Are you suggesting that because your head hurts when listening to covenantal views expressed here that perhaps MacArthur is suffering from the same malady? But that does not explain why he was confusing/imprecise of the (specific) dispensationalist vs. (general) premil designations. Do you really think he does not know the difference? Or was he imprecise because it would only serve to undermine his theory?

And what amils or postmils have you heard critique MacArthur’s eschatology who were commenting irresponsibly in their presentation? 

And I notice you did not state whether you thought MacArthur’s assessment was fair to his opponents. Please note it was MacArthur that stated this disagreement, questioning the integrity of fellow Calvinists because they do not share his admittedly unique views on election and future national Israel. Was MacArthur being charitable when he began the pastor’s conference in this manner? Granted, it’s his conference and he can do with it as he pleases. 

I would prefer to debate the substance of his views and how they were inappropriate in a Calvinist/Reformed setting, but you seem to wish to make it personal.


----------



## 44jason

> Granted, it’s his conference and he can do with it as he pleases.


Like charge me hundreds of dollars to tell me that I am not a Calvinist if I am not a Dispensational. I know Calvinist who had to spend nearly a thousand dollars [airplane tickets, hotel, food, conference fee, etc] to be told something like John Calvin was not a self-respecting Calvinist because he didn't believe that the spirits of dead saints will come back to this earth with Jesus and establish the nation of Israel as the ruling political power of the world. I was more than a little aggravated.

BUT I WILL ATTEND THE SHEPHERD'S CONFERENCE AGAIN. WHY? BECAUSE I LOVE AND RESPECT DR. MAC.


----------



## Wannabee

tcalbrecht said:


> I would prefer to debate the substance of his views and how they were inappropriate in a Calvinist/Reformed setting, but you seem to wish to make it personal.


Tom, I had no desire or intent to upset you with my comments. I was just calling to attention that your statements showed an element of pride and perhaps elitism. If you reject my efforts, that's fine. Your heart's condition is between you and Christ. 
To answer your question, which you seem bent on pinning me down on, I did think John misrepresented the amil position to a degree. He also had some very good comments that need to be seriously considered by amils. I've also read Waldron's response and found it excellent. He's a gentleman and a scholar and handled it with a degree of godliness that is exemplary. I love the man and appreciate his dedication that can handle such a situation with such tact and wisdom. Much of the difficulty with most who disagree with MacArthur's discussion is that they throw the baby out with the bath water. Every amil who listened to it should sit down and prayerfully consider what he said in order to challenge themselves to know what they believe and why. Will that make them change? I doubt it. But it's an exercise we all must regularly pursue.
I refuse to claim that John lied in order to cause a stir. You seem to think he did, and are all but using the word in your accusation. I have watched the man for the last several years. I've spoken with him on occasion. I know some men who know him well. He's the real deal. All it takes is just a few minutes with him and you would recognize that. Then, in your disagreements with him, you'll realize that they pale in comparison to your admiration of him. This is how I feel about men such as Sproul. Praise God for men with such insights and commitment to the truth.

Again, I really didn't intend to debate you or cause you any disgruntlement. It was a simple plea for grace and humility. Do with it what you will.

Blessings


----------



## Wannabee

Actual conversation (paraphrased):

Pastor to JM - I can't believe you believe in limited atonement.
JM - I do, and so do you.
P - Oh no I don't.
JM - Sure you do. Are all men saved?
P - No.
JM - Then what did Jesus' sacrifice atone for? See, you believe that Jesus' blood atones for those who are saved. Does it atone for those who are not.
P - Well, no.
JM - Sounds pretty limited to me.
P - ......................................................................

[Note: These are not the actual words, but he recently shared a similar conversation.]
The following are quotes



> 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.
> GC 70-11
> 
> 
> The answer is, in terms of Scripture, is that Christ died for the world--the Scripture talks about the world. But I think that the way you have to define that is to define it as humanity--human kind. The question is, "Whose sins, within humanity, did He actually atone for?" Right? "Whose sins did He actually pay the price for?" "Whose sins did He actually expiate?" "Whose punishment did he actually bear, and thus eliminate them from ever being judged?" And the answer is, "Only those who believe."
> 
> So Christ actually paid the penalty; suffered the wrath of God; expiated sin, and was a perfect and satisfactory atonement for the sins of all of who would ever believe. Some people want to say that He actually paid the penalty for the sins of all who ever lived. We have some problems with that. We have a number of passages in the New Testament that indicate that He died for His own, He purchased His own, with His own blood He purchased the Church. Those kinds of statements, I think, take the humanity, or the world and narrow it down more specifically to who it is, it is referring to. So in the end, if He died and paid the actual penalty for the sins of all people who ever lived, then Hell would be double jeopardy. Then how could you send people to Hell when their sins have been paid for? So you can't really have a complete expiation of the sins of everybody, or you are going to end up as a Universalist. So in reality Christ actually expiated the sins of those who believe.
> 
> Now in the end, of course, as you study the elective and unfolding purposes of the decree of God, it is clear that those who believe, believe because they were chosen before the foundation of the world. Their names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life and the Spirit of God came and regenerated them by the sovereign purposes of God.
> GC 70-17
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don’t know if I could clarify it, but I could take a sort of stab at it. People always ask this question about the extent of the atonement. What the question is, is basically this: did Jesus Christ die for the whole world or did He just die for the elect? Now, we believe in election because the Bible says that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world--their names were written in the Lamb’s book of life at that time--and they were given to Christ as a love gift from the Father. That’s what election is. We were predestined to be adopted as children of God and all of that. So, we believe in election.
> 
> The question then comes, did Christ die only for the elect or did He die for the whole world? The debate circles around these thoughts: if Christ died for the whole world, then He died for people that He didn’t save and didn’t choose, and therefore you have a wasted effort on His part. In other words, you have Him (this is the philosophical approach to it) you have Him dying for people who were never supposed to be saved anyway, so why would He bother to die for them?
> 
> Now, in the first place, this is a whole lot of human reasoning and that’s what makes it so very difficult. Christ died. He died. God knew who His death would benefit, true? God not only knew who His death would benefit; He decided who His death would benefit. He decided who His death would benefit before He planned His death, because He wouldn’t have planned a death unless He had planned a redemption effected by that death. Is that ok, in the “ordis” (sp?) category, Ken? Ok? (he's the Theology professor). I mean, you don’t plan the means until you plan the end or the goal. So, from the very outset, God knew that the death of Jesus Christ would be applicable to the elect. Beyond that, I cannot go…except to say this, that there are some ways--and you can find certain verses that seem to apply the atonement to the elect only--to go beyond it in several ways, maybe two. One first of all; there are some ways in which the death of Christ applies to the non-elect and the unsaved, and that would be in what theologians through the years have called “common grace.” Are you familiar with that term? Grace that is common to all.
> 
> For example, in Acts 14, "... in the generations gone by, He permitted all the nations to go their own ways." He let them go their own ways, "yet He didn’t leave Himself without witness in that He did good and gave rain from heaven and fruitful season, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." That’s what we call “common grace”: the rain falls on the just and the unjust. Also, in 1 Timothy 4:10, it says, "God is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." Now, what does "common grace" mean?
> 
> One, there is the temporal aspect of it, it's really all temporal, but let's just divide it that way for a moment. The first temporal aspect of it would be earthly blessing. Somehow in the atonement of Christ, the wrath of God was mitigated so that He allows even the unregenerate to enjoy life. Ok? I mean, they can laugh, and they can smile, and they can enjoy the richness of life in creation, and love, and children, and whatever. But secondly, "common grace" shows itself in a temporal way, in that God doesn't kill people, in other words, the very fact that a sinner takes another breath is grace--is it not? Because he deserves to die.
> 
> So somehow in the atonement there is found even a "common grace" which can be bestowed on an unregenerate, and that "common grace" will express itself in the blessings of human life and in human life itself. But then there is another component, and this throws the mystery into the whole thing, and that is this: if a person goes to hell, they do not go to hell because Christ didn't die for them--they go to hell because they rejected His death. Is that not true? Now that's what makes the whole thing incomprehensible to me. I was fine until I made that statement--right? But that's honest. There is an element in this whole atoning work that makes men culpable of sin, because "they believe not on Christ." Jesus simply said, "you will die in your sins because you believe not on Me." And, we are told to go into the whole world and preach the gospel "to all the elect"--is that right? [No], "to every creature!"
> 
> So, the atonement, certainly in the purposes and plan of God in its efficacy (its effectiveness) was from the very beginning, planned for and limited to the elect, and yet there was something in it that satisfied the justice of God so that he could be gracious commonly to all sinners, and there is another component in the atonement that renders sinners guilty of rejecting it, and thus they are damned. Now, if you understand all those components and just leave them there--you're ok. And we have to let God resolve all that in His own perfect wisdom.
> GC 70-15


See also point II at http://www.atruechurch.info/macstudybible.html. This guy says MacArthur's a false teacher because he teaches limited atonement. Seems the guy can't win.



Though slightly out of context, the principle of Romans 14:4-5 stands.
4 *Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.* 
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. *Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.*


Galatians 6:1-10 must be taken to heart.
1Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who _are_ spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, *considering yourself lest you also be tempted*. 2Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3For *if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.* 5For each one shall bear his own load. 
6Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches. 
*7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.*


----------



## Ivan

Wannabee said:


> Actual conversation (paraphrased):
> 
> Pastor to JM - I can't believe you believe in limited atonement.
> JM - I do, and so do you.
> P - Oh no I don't.
> JM - Sure you do. Are all men saved?
> P - No.
> JM - Then what did Jesus' sacrifice atone for? See, you believe that Jesus' blood atones for those who are saved. Does it atone for those who are not.
> P - Well, no.
> JM - Sounds pretty limited to me.
> P - ......................................................................



Beautiful! I love it!! 



> See also point II at http://www.atruechurch.info/macstudybible.html. This guy says MacArthur's a false teacher because he teaches limited atonement.


 
And that could pose a problem on this board, don't you think?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Wannabee said:


> Tom, I had no desire or intent to upset you with my comments. I was just calling to attention that your statements showed an element of pride and perhaps elitism. If you reject my efforts, that's fine. Your heart's condition is between you and Christ.
> 
> Again, I really didn't intend to debate you or cause you any disgruntlement. It was a simple plea for grace and humility. Do with it what you will.
> 
> Blessings



I'm not upset, and as for pride, I think this charge is an overreaction based on your fondness for MacArthur, but I could be wrong. I don’t believe there was any lack of grace in my comments given MacArthur changes against his Calvinist/Reformed brethren (of which I’m one). I called it as I saw it.

As to whether MacArthur lied or not, I did not use that term. However, let me ask one more thing, if I may. Do you believe that MacArthur does not understand the difference between historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism?


----------



## Herald

> See also point II at http://www.atruechurch.info/macstudybible.html. This guy says MacArthur's a false teacher because he teaches limited atonement.


 


> And that could pose a problem on this board, don't you think?



Ivan - no, it won't present a problem. Trust me.


----------



## turmeric

BaptistInCrisis said:


> See also point II at http://www.atruechurch.info/macstudybible.html. This guy says MacArthur's a false teacher because he teaches limited atonement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that could pose a problem on this board, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ivan - no, it won't present a problem. Trust me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wannabee

tcalbrecht said:


> However, let me ask one more thing, if I may. Do you believe that MacArthur does not understand the difference between historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism?


I can't speak for him on that, because I've never heard him discuss it directly. Because he is so well studied, and has an incredible memory (remembers everything he reads, and who wrote/said it), I would venture that he does understand the distinction. However, I would also say that it wasn't his focus during his discussion at the Shep Conf. 
Try to understand JM. He wants the truth known. Many are walking around saying that eschatology is simply unknowable, so why bother? On the other hand, JM says that it is knowable because God gave us what we need in order to know it. He says that he understands it. And, he says that those who take an agnostic approach to it are denigrating the Word of God. So, like he does, he took the ball and ran with it. He took the bull by the horns and delivered that message knowing full well that it would start a stir. He wants people to think. He wants the discussion out in the open so that people will quit dancing around the debate.
This is what he did with Lordship salvation (which I assume all here agree with). This is what he did with the sensationalistic charismatics (which I assume, even if charismatic, most here are against). This is what he's done with the health/wealth shenanigans (which I assume all here are against - and why Benny Hinn wants to blow his brains out with a Holy Ghost machine gun!). It's part of what he does. He shares with the church what he's doing and why. They understand, pray and support him. He's done a great deal to help people think rightly about Scripture and their relationship with Christ. Now, on this issue, like the others, there are many who are in great disagreement with him. Only this time more of them are his friends than what we've seen in the past. That rankles with some. But these same men are still his friends, even if they do disagree with his hermeneutic and eschatology. 
Look at how Waldron handled his disagreements with JM. I really cannot say more about it. He was incredible. Although I disagree with his conclusions, I have more respect for that man than most men that I agree with. That's how it should be handled, with love and graciousness, recognizing that one is not superior simply because one thinks his exegesis is more accurate than another. And that's why I posted the Scripture I posted above.

We all have a long way to go, Tom. Debating can be fun. Because of my hermeneutic and positions that are not popular on this board I've had my fair share of run-ins. God has shown me much about myself in this regard over the last few years. And, like it or not, that's why I recognized what I did in your posts. When we can no longer "overlook" our disagreements with dear brothers in Christ on the non-essentials, then we have overstepped and are judging the servant of another. JM is "convinced in his own mind" and striving hard to serve Christ and His bride. He's accomplishing way more for the furtherance of the kingdom than most of us ever will come close to. I praise God for men such as JM, Sproul, Dever, Mohler, Waldron, Mahaney, Piper, etc., not to mention old dead guys who had incredible minds. And that's a pretty mixed bag. So, in light of all that, and with a sincere recognition that we are brethren in Christ, striving toward the same goal, fighting the same fight, _let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith_.

For the King,


----------



## tcalbrecht

Wannabee said:


> I can't speak for him on that, because I've never heard him discuss it directly. Because he is so well studied, and has an incredible memory (remembers everything he reads, and who wrote/said it), I would venture that he does understand the distinction. However, I would also say that it wasn't his focus during his discussion at the Shep Conf.
> 
> Try to understand JM. He wants the truth known. Many are walking around saying that eschatology is simply unknowable, so why bother? On the other hand, JM says that it is knowable because God gave us what we need in order to know it. He says that he understands it. And, he says that those who take an agnostic approach to it are denigrating the Word of God. So, like he does, he took the ball and ran with it. He took the bull by the horns and delivered that message knowing full well that it would start a stir. He wants people to think. He wants the discussion out in the open so that people will quit dancing around the debate.
> 
> …
> 
> Look at how Waldron handled his disagreements with JM. I really cannot say more about it. He was incredible. Although I disagree with his conclusions, I have more respect for that man than most men that I agree with. That's how it should be handled, with love and graciousness, recognizing that one is not superior simply because one thinks his exegesis is more accurate than another. And that's why I posted the Scripture I posted above.



If this was truly MacArthur’s intent, then he did a poor job demonstrating such at the conference. Non-dispensationalists of the Calvinistic/Reformed stripe do not tend to be “agnostic” on the eschatology issue, at least not in my experience. Sproul is certainly not “agnostic”, having written _The Last Days according to Jesus_. Neither is Riddlebarger nor Gentry. In fact, the books and articles written by non-dispensationalists of the Calvinistic/Reformed folks far outnumber those by MacArthur and his ilk. (Which is understandable because of their minority status.)

So I do not agree with your assessment of MacArthur’s intent, other than he wants the truth (as he perceives it) known. I did not see the humble attitude in his address. I did not see a willingness to learn from his Reformed brethren on this matter. Frankly, I saw a man with an axe to grind and an opportunity to grind it in a very public way. To insinuate that John Calvin would be on his side were he alive today is the height of that arrogance.



> Now that leads to my title: “Why Every Self-respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist.” Now it’s too late for Calvin, but it’s not too late for the rest of you. And *if Calvin were here, he would join our movement*. … Let’s leave Amillennialism for the Arminians. It’s perfect. It’s ideal. It’s a no-brainer. … *Arminians make great Amillennialists*. It’s consistent. … We can leave Amillennialism to the process theologians …
> 
> *But for those who get it*, for those of us who get it, that God is sovereign and listen, and He is the only one who can determine who will be saved and when they will be saved, and He is the only one who can save them, Amillennialism makes no sense because it basically says Israel, on their own, forfeited all the promises.



Note the arrogance in the title, “Why Every Self-respecting Calvinist *is* (not "should be") a Premillennialist.” Does that mean I’m not “self-respecting.” Or does it mean I’m not really a Calvinist.

And what “movement” is MacArthur referring to? The “movement” that began with Darby and Scofield in the 19th century? The “movement of one” driven by the founder of the Master’s Seminary.

Reformed Amillennialists do not “get it”. They are more akin to Arminians and “process theologians”. 

Doesn’t it sound just a bit “prideful” to you? When do you think we can we expect an apology from MacArthur to his Reformed brethren?

My suspicion is that TMS grads are leaving the Calvinist dispensational ghetto and are bleeding over into a more consistently Reformed/Calvinistic eschatology, and this concerns MacArthur. Thus the strong words.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tcalbrecht said:


> To insinuate that John Calvin would be on his side were he alive today is the height of that arrogance.




It reminds me of those that claim that the Reformers left certain Sacramental doctrines "un-Reformed" and, by contrast, the claimants are just Godly enough to do so. Meanwhile, they are borrowing the entire rest of his corpus on Systematic theology. But, on that point, Calvin was a complete dunce.

I mean, really, if you're going to entitle an address to promote Dispensationalism, why not entitle it: "Why every self-respecting theologian should be a pre-millenialist"?

I find it disingenuous to even hint at the fact that Calvin bought into dispensationlism in the least by giving MacArthur's eschatology the title a *Calvin*ist eschatology. Yet, such is the nature of all novel theologies that they want Calvin's name attached to something he clearly did not teach.

Why not simply step out, on your own, and say: "This is my eschatology. I'm right and all of the Reformed are wrong on this point."

At least then, he'd be operating from a point of genuine historicity on the point and we could move on to the merits/demerits of the argument rather than giving his theology a label that is unjustly ascribed to a godly forbear.


----------



## JM

I've heard it said that MTS is moving away from Calvinism, I don't know if it's true.


----------



## Wannabee

You can disagree all you like Tom. That's what he said from the pulpit at GCC, and I was there. So, you're either calling him, or me, a liar.


tcalbrecht said:


> Doesn’t it sound just a bit “prideful” to you? When do you think we can we expect an apology from MacArthur to his Reformed brethren?
> 
> My suspicion is that TMS grads are leaving the Calvinist dispensational ghetto and are bleeding over into a more consistently Reformed/Calvinistic eschatology, and this concerns MacArthur. Thus the strong words.


Don't expect an apology. There can be fine line between confidence in God's Word and arrogance. If someone disagrees with you it can seem like arrogance, though it may not be. You rest in the sovereignty of God in salvation. Your brother in Christ may not. Yet, because you understand God's Word more clearly in regard to predestination you can speak confidently. Your brother, however, is convinced and sees your position as arrogance. Pride? Perhaps. But, whether it is or not, it's instilled by a confidence in God's Word. You disagree with MacArthur, but in your manner of dealing with your disagreement you continue to reveal your own arrogance by making yourself an expert and claiming that a faithful man of God is naive, short-sighted, etc. Disagree all you want. But, in doing so, learn from the character of men like Sproul and Waldron in the process.

Your comment about TMS grads is unhelpful, derogatory and simply based on your own prejudices. As one, and one who has regular contact with both grads and students, I can assure you that this is absolute nonsense. You act like MacArthur's against the ropes or something. There have been a few who have embraced a more reformed doctrine/hermeneutic/system, but the majority are still comfortable with the TMS position, which is decidedly MacArthurite. Having said that, there is grace in the class rooms and the professors do not treat students who don't "tow the line," so to speak, with any harshness. As long as they present a good argument and handle Scripture well they do well. When looking for a seminary a friend of mine advised me to "find a seminary that will teach you how to think, not what to think." That's what TMS does. They teach systematics, but the focus is on preparing the men to grapple with Scripture and arrive at the truth on their own. This is decidedly uncharacteristic of most of today's seminaries, which perceive a need to force their own "systems" down the throats of their students.

This grows wearying Tom. You have a bone to pick and you need a platform. You've been called and don't like it. If you sense a need and see bashing MacArthur as your service to God then by all means start another thread. If you leave MacArthur's name out of it I probably won't even notice. But it would be much better for you, the PB, and God's Kingdom, if another approach was taken; one tempered by love, mercy, grace and humility.


----------



## Israelite

Hi Joshua, i want to briefly reply to some of your questions. 

You said:
Chris, do you believe that any one of God's elect can be saved apart from faith? Really?

No

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 

You said:
Chris, are God's elect justified by God's means of faith? 

God's elect were justified at the cross 2,000 years ago.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, *being now justified by his blood,* we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10 For if, when we were enemies, *we were *reconciled to God *by the death of his Son,* much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; *even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.*

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Romans 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"

Romans 4:25 "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for (because of) our justification."

Romans 5:8-11 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Much more then, *being now justified by his blood,* we shall be saved from wrath through him. (10) For if, when we were enemies, *we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son*, much more, *being reconciled*, *we shall be saved by his life.* (11) And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."


You said:
Umm...yeah. Duh. God has a means to His end. Chris, are you purporting that men may be justified apart from faith/repentance (which is no doubt brought about by regeneration)? Really?

I believe that the bible clearly teaches that our justification was accomplished 2,000 years ago when Christ cried out "IT IS FINISHED" but don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean as some who are called primitive baptists teach that many will die in ignorance of the gospel and still enter into glory.


Joshua, do you believe God saved you conditioned on your faith? 


You said:
Yeah, the faith He gave me as a gift. The means by which He brought me unto Himself. He elected me in eternity past. He made provision for my justification on the cross. He applied said provision to me upon my conversion, which went like this: Regeneration---->Faith/Repentance--->Justification--->Still Workin' on Sanctification---->Will be Glorification. 

Joshua, one man i have read rightly said 
quote:
Faith is not a condition of or prerequisite to salvation; instead, faith believes that Jesus Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation.

He is correct.

Quote:
do you believe justification is conditioned on faith? 

You said:
See above.

the answer is a resounding no, even if you believe faith is the alone instrument whereby God's elect recieve justification as defined in the westimster and baptist confessions, it is not a condition.
salvation is unconditional.

Quote:
God says:
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, *and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true,* and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance *to the acknowledging of the truth*;

John 8:32 And ye shall *know the truth*, and the truth shall make you free. 

You said:
Amen! I love Scripture. Not really sure how anything you've drivelled above is relevant to the aforementioned texts. 

my point was that God gives his elect an understanding of the truth of the gospel, the simple gospel of Christ crucified (according to the scriptures).

God saves his people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.


----------



## turmeric

Whoa, whoa, whoa!
I think some are confusing regeneration and justification. I think we all would agree that *regeneration* precedes *faith* and is a gracious, immediate work of the Holy Spirit, independent of anyone's actions. Faith is a gift, and is commonly said to be the instrument of our justification.
[BIBLE]Rom 3:27-31[/BIBLE]


----------



## AV1611

turmeric said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa!
> I think some are confusing regeneration and justification. I think we all would agree that *regeneration* precedes *faith* and is a gracious, immediate work of the Holy Spirit, independent of anyone's actions. Faith is a gift, and is commonly said to be the instrument of our justification.
> [BIBLE]Rom 3:27-31[/BIBLE]



Our justification _in our person_ but we are justified from eternity _in Christ our Surety_. I would point to Thomas Goodwin, William Twisse, John Gill, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Hoeksema as theologians who held to that position.


----------



## Israelite

Hi Richard, what are your thoughts on this verse.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being *now justified by his blood*, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

how does one who holds to justification from eternity like yourself and John Gill deal with this verse?


----------



## Calvibaptist

Israelite said:


> Hi Richard, what are your thoughts on this verse.
> 
> Romans 5:9 Much more then, being *now justified by his blood*, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
> 
> how does one who holds to justification from eternity like yourself and John Gill deal with this verse?



Well, I'm not either of those, but here is why being a Baptist is important. I believe in regenerate church membership (not to get back into that debate again). This verse simply cannot apply to those who are unsaved. Paul is writing to the church in Rome, to those he has already called "saints" and "beloved of God." He is writing to those who are already believers and emphasizes that they are in a state of justification.

Besides that, the context of the passage is justification by faith. Romans 5:1 says "being justified by faith." It is in reference to those whom God has called in space and time and given repentance and faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

It seems Romans 4:1 through 5:1 is being skipped over and they want to jump into something that this passage leads to. 



> (Rom 5:1) Therefore, *having been justified by faith*, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
> 
> (Rom 5:2) through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.





> (Rom 4:1) What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
> 
> (Rom 4:2) For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
> 
> (Rom 4:3) For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
> 
> (Rom 4:4) Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
> 
> 
> (Rom 4:5) But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,





> (Gal 2:16) knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
> 
> 
> 
> (Gal 3:5) Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?—
> 
> (Gal 3:6) just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
> 
> (Gal 3:7) Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
> 
> (Gal 3:8) And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
> 
> (Gal 3:9) So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.




Faith is required for justification.

Westminster Confession 11.4 explicitly says:

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is a thread and blog you may want to read through. Justification / Vindication

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=22545

http://www.oceansideurc.org/the-heidelblog/2007/6/23/justification-v-vindication-2.html


----------



## AV1611

Israelite said:


> Hi Richard, what are your thoughts on this verse.
> 
> Romans 5:9 Much more then, being *now justified by his blood*, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
> 
> how does one who holds to justification from eternity like yourself and John Gill deal with this verse?



On Romans 5:9 Gill writes 

*Much more then being now justified by his blood,.... *The apostle here argues from justification by Christ to salvation by him, there being a certain and inseparable connection between these two; whoever is justified shall be saved; and speaks of justification "as being now by his blood". Justification in God's mind from eternity proceeded upon the suretyship engagements of Christ to be performed in time; the Old Testament saints were justified of God with a view to the blood of the Lamb which was to be shed; this blood was "now" shed, and an application of justification by it was "now" made to the persons spoken of; which is the reason of this way of speaking. The blood of Christ intends his death, as appears from the context, and shows it to be a violent death; death by the effusion of blood. There is an emphasis upon it, "his blood"; not the blood of bulls and goats, nor of a mere innocent creature, but of Christ the Son of God; which is therefore efficacious to all the purposes for which it was shed, and particularly justification. This being ascribed to it, shows the concern Christ had in it, his blood is here put for the whole matter of justification; the shedding of that being the finishing part of it; and that our justification before God proceeds upon the foot of a satisfaction made to the law and justice of God: hence such as are interested in it,​
He also deals with this type of objection thus:

"The several passages of scripture, where we are said to be justified by, or through faith, are urged, as declaring faith to be a prerequisite to justification; which cannot be, say they, if justification was from eternity." To which I answer: That those places of scripture, which speak of justification, by, or through faith, do not militate against, nor disprove justification before faith: for though justification before, and by faith differ; yet they are not opposite and contradictory: yea, justification by, or through faith; supposes justification before faith. For if there was no justification before faith, there can be none by it, without making faith the cause or condition of it. As to those places of scripture, which speak of justification by, or through faith, declaring faith to be prerequisite to justification, I reply: If by a prerequisite, is meant a prerequisite to the being of justification, it is denied that those scriptures teach any such thing; for faith adds nothing to the being of justification: but if by it, is meant a prerequisite to the sense and knowledge of it, or to a claim of interest in it, it will be allowed to be the sense of them. But a learned author says: That "to refer them to a sense of justification only, is weak and foreign to the mind of the apostle Paul." But I must beg leave to differ from him, till some reasons are given why it is so. But let us a little consider some of the scriptures which are insisted on. Perhaps the words of my text may be thought to stare me in the face and to furnish out an objection against justification, before faith; when the apostle says, And by him all that believe are justified. From whence it can only be inferred: that all who believe are justified persons, which no body denies; and they may be justified before they believe, for aught that the apostle here says. And if any one should think fit to infer from hence, that those who believe not, are not justified, it will he allowed that they are not declaratively, or evidentially justified: that they do not know that they are; that they cannot receive any comfort from it, nor claim any interest in justification; but that they are not justified in God’s sight, or in Christ the Mediator, cannot be proved. Again, the apostle in 1 Corinthians 6:11, says of the Corinthians, that they were now justified, as if they were not justified before. But this I conceive, does not at all militate against justification before faith: for they might be justified in foro Dei, and in their Head, Christ Jesus, before now, and yet not till now be justified in their own consciences, and by the Spirit of God; which, it is plain, is the justification the apostle is here speaking of. But the grand text, which is urged to prove justification a consequent of faith, is Galatians 2:16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ. Here the apostle is speaking of justification, as it terminates upon the conscience of a believer; and this is readily granted to follow faith, and to be a consequent of it; for that none are justified by faith until they believe, is acknowledged by all. The apostle’s meaning then is, that we have believed in Christ, or have looked to him for justification, that we might have the comfortable sense and apprehension of it, through faith in him; or that we may appear to he justified, or to expect justification alone by his righteousness, received by faith, and not by the works of the law. In the same light may many other scriptures, of the same kind, be considered. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_37.htm​
Gill sets forth the doctrine here also and I would impress upon you the need to read this. Whilst you are at it try John Brine's http://www.mountzionpbc.org/John_Brine/JB_Eternal_Justification.htm



Hope they help


----------



## AV1611

puritancovenanter said:


> Faith is required for justification.



Faith is an evidence of being justified _in Christ_ from eternity and through faith we become justified _in our own person_. Have a gander at Kuyper's _Justification from Eternity_. 

Furthermore the Synod of Urtrecht of 1905 declared:

In regard to the second point, eternal justification, Synod declares:

that the term itself does not occur in the Confessional Standards but that it is not for this reason to be disapproved, any more than we would be justified in disapproving the term Covenant of Works and similar terms which have been adopted through theological usage;

that it is incorrect to say that our Confessional Standards know only of a justification by and through faith, since both Gods' Word (Rom. 4:25) and our Confession (Article XX) speak explicitly of an objective justification sealed by the resurrection of Christ, which in point of time precedes the subjective justification;

that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith. 

Wherefore Synod earnestly warns against any view that would do violence either to Christ's eternal suretyship for his elect, or to the requirement of a sincere faith to be justified before God in the tribunal of conscience.​


----------



## JM

RJS wrote: "...we are justified from eternity..." Brother, you didn't mean we are justified in eternity but from eternity right?

Thomas Goodwin, "We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ what is said of Christ, that `his goings forth are from everlasting'" 

or

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Do I understand you correctly?

Peace,

j


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> RJS wrote: "...we are justified from eternity..." Brother, you didn't mean we are justified in eternity but from eternity right?
> 
> Thomas Goodwin, "We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ what is said of Christ, that `his goings forth are from everlasting'"
> 
> or
> 
> "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
> 
> Do I understand you correctly?
> 
> Peace,
> 
> j



Indeed brother, we are justified _from_ eternity. 

Pink quotes Goodwin thus:

In his ponderous treatise on justification, the Puritan Thomas Goodwin made clear some vital distinctions, which if carefully observed will preserve us from error on this point. "1. In the everlasting covenant. We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ, what is said of Christ Himself, that their ‘goings forth are from everlasting.’ Justified then we were when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head (Eph. 1:3). 2. There is a farther act of justifying us, which passed from God towards us in Christ, upon His payment and performance at His resurrection (Rom. 4:25, 1 Tim. 3:16). 3. But these two acts of justification are wholly out of us, immanent acts in God, and though they concern us and are towards us, yet not acts of God upon us, they being performed towards us not as actually existing in ourselves, but only as existing in our Head, who covenanted for us and represented us: so as though by those acts we are estated into a right and title to justification, yet the benefit and possession of that estate we have not without a farther act being passed upon us." 

Before regeneration we are justified by existing in our Head only, as a feoffee (one who is given a grant), held in trust for us, as children under age. In addition to which, we "are to be in our own persons, though still through Christ, possessed of it, and to have all the deeds and evidences of it committed to the custody and apprehension of our faith. We are in our own persons made true owners and enjoyers of it, which is immediately done at that instant when we first believe; which act (of God) is the completion and accomplishment of the former two, and is that grand and famous justification by faith which the Scripture so much inculcates—note the ‘now’ in Romans 5:9, 11; 8:11... God doth judge and pronounce His elect ungodly and unjustified till they believe" (Ibid.)​


----------



## Israelite

turmeric said:


> I think we all would agree that *regeneration* precedes *faith* and is a gracious, immediate work of the Holy Spirit, independent of anyone's actions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect (Rom_8:30; Gal_3:8; 1Pe_1:2, 1Pe_1:19, 1Pe_1:20), and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification (Rom_4:25; Gal_4:4; 1Ti_2:6): *nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them* (Gal_2:16; Col_1:21, Col_1:22; Tit_3:4-7).





> 1679 London Baptist Confession of Faith
> 4. God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless,* they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them*.
> ( Galatians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:6; Romans 4:25; Colossians 1:21,22; Titus 3:4-7 )




I am hoping your justification from eternity is not the same as eternal justification that these two confessions are denouncing. It would be apparent to me that Justification from Eternity implies justification comes from God and we find the foundation for justification from Him. But it is not applied to persons until the Holy Spirit applies it to a regenerates life. Do you agree with the two confessions above?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession *it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith. *

The next passage after your quote in a previous post..... Synod of Urtrecht of 1905


----------



## JM

Lets get back on track.


----------



## tcalbrecht

JM said:


> Lets get back on track.



OK, let's.

Kim Riddlebarger's observation about MacArthur is this:



> As I see it, here’s the issue. Dr. MacArthur picked this fight. His contention that unless you see Scripture through dispensational eyes, you cannot be a “self-respecting Calvinist” surprised many–Reformed amillennarians and historic premillennarians alike. Without the dispensational lens–says MacArthur–you will misunderstand much of the Bible. The latter point is part of the long-standing debate between amillennarians and dispensationalists (and no surprise), but the former comes as big news to those of us who are confessional Calvinists who think MacArthur’s brand of dispensational premillennialism is antithetical to any historic or confessional form of Reformed or Calvinistic theology.
> 
> Yet, here is John MacArthur telling confessional Calvinists that unless they give up their amillennialism, they cannot be consistently “Calvinists.” The sheer audacity of that charge is striking.



To most folks, the term "Reformed" is synonymous with "confessional", i.e., subscription to some reformed subordinate standard which defines your personal creed. By this definition MacArthur is not Reformed. 

Further, MacArthur accepts a confession of sorts, but it is the informal confession of the modern dispensational movement, a movement criticized by most (all?) of the Reformed denominations. 

Given the recent passing of Dr. Kennedy, the anecdote on The PCA Historical Center web site is telling. In the context of a 1944 statement on dispensaitonalism by the old Southern Presbyterian Church, the Center notes:



> Recently it has come to our attention that Dr. D. James Kennedy, when examining a candidate for ordination, routinely asks for that candidate's views on the subject of dispensationalism, and particularly asks him to state his agreement with or disapproval of the 1944 report issued by the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (i.e., the Southern Presbyterian Church). In light of that anecdote and in an effort to assist those hapless candidates who might otherwise have no knowledge of this document, we reproduce it here.



This document from the PCUS concludes this way:



> It is the unanimous opinion of your Committee that Dispensationalism as defined and set forth above is out of accord with the system of the doctrine set forth in the Confession of Faith, not primarily or simply in the field of eschatology, but because it attacks the very heart of the Theology of our Church, which is unquestionably a Theology of one Covenant of Grace. As Dr. Chafer clearly recognizes, there are two schools of interpretation represented here, which he rightly designates as “Covenant*ism” as over against “Dispensationalism.” (Bibliotheca Sctcra, Vol. 100, No. 399, p. 338.)
> 
> In fact, the divergence of Dispensationalism from the Covenant Theology of our Church is so obvious to Dr. Chafer that he suggests a revision of the Standards of the Church so as to make room for those who no longer hold to the Reformed tradi*tion of a Covenant Theology. (ibid., p. 345.)


----------



## AV1611

puritancovenanter said:


> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect (Rom_8:30; Gal_3:8; 1Pe_1:2, 1Pe_1:19, 1Pe_1:20), and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification (Rom_4:25; Gal_4:4; 1Ti_2:6): *nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them* (Gal_2:16; Col_1:21, Col_1:22; Tit_3:4-7).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1679 London Baptist Confession of Faith
> 4. God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless,* they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them*.
> ( Galatians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:6; Romans 4:25; Colossians 1:21,22; Titus 3:4-7 )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am hoping your justification from eternity is not the same as eternal justification that these two confessions are denouncing. It would be apparent to me that Justification from Eternity implies justification comes from God and we find the foundation for justification from Him. But it is not applied to persons until the Holy Spirit applies it to a regenerates life. Do you agree with the two confessions above?
Click to expand...




puritancovenanter said:


> that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession *it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith. *
> 
> The next passage after your quote in a previous post..... Synod of Urtrecht of 1905



My final statment on this thread regarding this issue: I do not disagree with the statements above. I would suggest you understand the argument before attacking it (not that you are but many people have become very irrate with my position before they even knew what it was). Try these. 

These will help as they deal with background issues:
_The Doctrine of Eternal Justification in light of the Westminster Tradition_ (1)
_The Doctrine of Eternal Justification in light of the Westminster Tradition_ (2)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

AV1611 said:


> My final statment on this thread regarding this issue: I do not disagree with the statements above. I would suggest you understand the argument before attacking it (not that you are but many people have become very irrate with my position before they even knew what it was). Try these.
> 
> These will help as they deal with background issues:
> _The Doctrine of Eternal Justification in light of the Westminster Tradition_ (1)
> _The Doctrine of Eternal Justification in light of the Westminster Tradition_ (2)



I'm sorry Richard, but reading one of the articles leads me to believe that the only reason someone might port out that language would almost to purposefully be contrarian. It seems, in the end, that you're saying the same thing but you want to use a term that is going to raise hackles and lead people to believe you are un-Confessional only to qualify and use words and sentences in a way that end up saying pretty much the same thing.

Why would you feel a need to do so?


----------



## VictorBravo

^ A clarification (and to defend Randy). It looks like the quote got truncated. *puritancovenanter* did not make the above statement.


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> I'm sorry Richard, but reading one of the articles leads me to believe that the only reason someone might port out that language would almost to purposefully be contrarian. It seems, in the end, that you're saying the same thing but you want to use a term that is going to raise hackles and lead people to believe you are un-Confessional only to qualify and use words and sentences in a way that end up saying pretty much the same thing.
> 
> Why would you feel a need to do so?



You are welcome to think what you will. My position is the same as Thomas Goodwin, Herman Witsius and William Twisse. There are (at least) two views of what eternal justification means, 1st, we are justified in eternity fully (the antinomian viewpoint), 2nd, we are justified _from_ eternity in Christ. Hence the heated debates in the past. 

*Dr. Twisse:* "Forgiveness of sin, if you regard the quiddity of it, is no other than a negation of punishment, or a will not to punish: be it therefore, that to forgive sin is no other than to will not to punish; why, this will not to punish, as it is an immanent act in God, was from eternity."

*Dr. Twisse:* "Justification and absolution, as they signify an immanent act of the divine will, are from eternity: but the external notification of the same will and manner of a judicial and forensic absolution, which is made by the Word and Spirit, at the tribunal of every one’s conscience, is that imputation of Christ’s righteousness, remission of sins, justification and absolution, which follow faith. For hereupon absolution is pronounced, as it were by the mouth of a judge, and so that internal purpose of absolving, which was from eternity, is made manifest."

I believe in EJ for the simple reason that it is Scriptural and of great comfort to the brethren. I delight to rest assured in _THE DOCTRINES OF GOD’S EVERLASTING LOVE TO HIS ELECT, AND THEIR ETERNAL UNION WITH Christ_.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

AV1611 said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Richard, but reading one of the articles leads me to believe that the only reason someone might port out that language would almost to purposefully be contrarian. It seems, in the end, that you're saying the same thing but you want to use a term that is going to raise hackles and lead people to believe you are un-Confessional only to qualify and use words and sentences in a way that end up saying pretty much the same thing.
> 
> Why would you feel a need to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to think what you will. My position is the same as Thomas Goodwin, Herman Witsius and William Twisse. There are (at least) two views of what eternal justification means, 1st, we are justified in eternity fully (the antinomian viewpoint), 2nd, we are justified _from_ eternity in Christ. Hence the heated debates in the past.
> 
> *Dr. Twisse:* "Forgiveness of sin, if you regard the quiddity of it, is no other than a negation of punishment, or a will not to punish: be it therefore, that to forgive sin is no other than to will not to punish; why, this will not to punish, as it is an immanent act in God, was from eternity."
> 
> *Dr. Twisse:* "Justification and absolution, as they signify an immanent act of the divine will, are from eternity: but the external notification of the same will and manner of a judicial and forensic absolution, which is made by the Word and Spirit, at the tribunal of every one’s conscience, is that imputation of Christ’s righteousness, remission of sins, justification and absolution, which follow faith. For hereupon absolution is pronounced, as it were by the mouth of a judge, and so that internal purpose of absolving, which was from eternity, is made manifest."
> 
> I believe in EJ for the simple reason that it is Scriptural and of great comfort to the brethren. I delight to rest assured in _THE DOCTRINES OF GOD’S EVERLASTING LOVE TO HIS ELECT, AND THEIR ETERNAL UNION WITH Christ_.
Click to expand...


Look Richard, I just find this conclusion strange:


> Was all the debate in the Presbyterian tradition (as well as the Continental) simply over words? Undoubtedly there has been some talking past one another. This paper has sought to demonstrate that there were nevertheless important issues at stake in the use of various terminology regarding our justification. To speak of eternal justification is not wrong, but it must be qualified so that both the objective and subjective aspects of justification are maintained in proper balance with the eternal aspect. At the same time, it must be vigorously maintained that our justification has its source in eternity.


I took the time to read much of the articles. All you're saying is that you believe that the WCF is right but you prefer your terminology - terminology that doesn't exist in the Word. The WCF and Reformed Confessions preserve the notion that Justification is based in eternity.

I just find it odd that people would want to insist upon using different terminology to express the same idea when the immediate reaction from every Confessional person would be to question what you mean, only to have you get into a long discussion that you're saying the same thing. Why not just strive for unity up front instead of sowing potential discord over a term?


----------



## Herald

> I just find it odd that people would want to insist upon using different terminology to express the same idea when the immediate reaction from every Confessional person would be to question what you mean, only to have you get into a long discussion that you're saying the same thing. Why not just strive for unity up front instead of sowing potential discord over a term?


----------



## MW

I could nearly be taken in by the language of Twisse et al. except that I discern such language bypasses God's covenantal action in time. Covenant of works = condemned. Covenant of grace = justified. Not until the elect are instated in the covenant of grace are they justified in the true sense of the term. "En Xristw" -- how is it possible for such well studied divines to miss this fundamental Pauline term. Eph. 1:4, the relation between election and blamelessness is mediated by the infinitive "einai" expressing purpose, not result. This is virtual justification, not actual justification. The doctrine of eternal justification undermines the historical process whereby God brings His elect to glory.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

joshua said:


> Whoah! Really? So the elect weren't born "children of wrath?"[bible]Ephesians 2:1-3[/bible]
> 
> I disagree. We're all, by nature, children of wrath. Our justification was decreed in eternity, secured at the cross, but not applied until conversion.



Joshua, In this thread I actually asked him his understanding of the word "by".

Here is what I wrote in the post:


> When you say this, how do you understand the word "by" when it says "we are justified by faith"?
> 
> Here is what I know: "By" = instrumental dative: means by which things come to pass. Therefore, the instrumental cause of justification is faith. IF we are justified "by" our faith, how is it that we are justified on the cross 2,000 years ago? Did we have faith before we existed?



You hit it on the nail when you said:


> We're all, by nature, children of wrath. Our justification was decreed in eternity, secured at the cross, but not applied until conversion.





> Eph 2:2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
> 
> 3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.





> Romans 3:28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith


----------



## Andrew P.C.

AV1611 said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Richard, but reading one of the articles leads me to believe that the only reason someone might port out that language would almost to purposefully be contrarian. It seems, in the end, that you're saying the same thing but you want to use a term that is going to raise hackles and lead people to believe you are un-Confessional only to qualify and use words and sentences in a way that end up saying pretty much the same thing.
> 
> Why would you feel a need to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to think what you will. My position is the same as Thomas Goodwin, Herman Witsius and William Twisse. There are (at least) two views of what eternal justification means, 1st, we are justified in eternity fully (the antinomian viewpoint), 2nd, we are justified _from_ eternity in Christ. Hence the heated debates in the past.
> 
> *Dr. Twisse:* "Forgiveness of sin, if you regard the quiddity of it, is no other than a negation of punishment, or a will not to punish: be it therefore, that to forgive sin is no other than to will not to punish; why, this will not to punish, as it is an immanent act in God, was from eternity."
> 
> *Dr. Twisse:* "Justification and absolution, as they signify an immanent act of the divine will, are from eternity: but the external notification of the same will and manner of a judicial and forensic absolution, which is made by the Word and Spirit, at the tribunal of every one’s conscience, is that imputation of Christ’s righteousness, remission of sins, justification and absolution, which follow faith. For hereupon absolution is pronounced, as it were by the mouth of a judge, and so that internal purpose of absolving, which was from eternity, is made manifest."
> 
> I believe in EJ for the simple reason that it is Scriptural and of great comfort to the brethren. I delight to rest assured in _THE DOCTRINES OF GOD’S EVERLASTING LOVE TO HIS ELECT, AND THEIR ETERNAL UNION WITH Christ_.
Click to expand...


Richard,

I thank you so much for your links to covenant theology by the way.

A quick note though. I find no scriptural justification for being "justified" in eternity past. If this is what you believe(since I'm confused by your terminology) then I would ask that you provide scriptural evidence. You quoting other men is as valid as me quoting Darwin to state evolution is right(which I don't believe).


----------



## AV1611

Andrew P.C. said:


> Richard,
> 
> I thank you so much for your links to covenant theology by the way.
> 
> A quick note though. I find no scriptural justification for being "justified" in eternity past. If this is what you believe(since I'm confused by your terminology) then I would ask that you provide scriptural evidence. You quoting other men is as valid as me quoting Darwin to state evolution is right(which I don't believe).



It is a logical issue similar to the issue of a Covenant of Redemption, the lapsarian issue,etc. Scripture supports it, no confessions condemn it (whether they explicitly teach it is a different issue) but it is not a proof texting issue as such. 

Spurgeon:

But there are one or two acts of God which, while they certainly are decreed as much as other things, yet they bear such a special relation to God's predestination that it is rather difficult to say whether they were done in eternity or whether they were done in time. Election is one of those things which were done absolutely in eternity; all who were elect, were elect as much in eternity as they are in time. But you may say, "Does the like affirmation apply to adoption or justification?" My late eminent and now glorified predecessor, Dr. Gill, diligently studying these doctrines, said that adoption was the act of God in eternity, and that as all believers were elect in eternity, so beyond a doubt they were adopted in eternity. He went further than that to include the doctrine of justification and he said that inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds.

Now, I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he said, though there was a considerable outcry raised against him at the time he first uttered it. However, that being a high and mysterious point, we would have you accept the doctrine that all those who are saved at last were elect in eternity when the means as well the end were determined. With regard to adoption, I believe we were predestined hereunto in eternity, but I do think there are some points with regard to adoption which will not allow me to consider the act of adoption to have been completed in eternity. For instance, the positive translation of my soul from a state of nature into a state of grace is a part of adoption or at least it is an effect at it, and so close an effect that it really seems to be a part of adoption itself: I believe that this was designed, and in fact that it was virtually carried out in God's everlasting covenant; but I think that it was that actually then brought to pass in all its fullness.

So with regard to justification, I must hold, that in the moment when Jesus Christ paid my debts, my debts were cancelled—in the hour when he worked out for me a perfect righteousness it was imputed to me, and therefore I may as a believer say I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec; but I know likewise that justification is described in the Scriptures as passing upon me at the time I believe. "Being justified by faith," I am told "I have peace with God, through Jesus Christ." I think, therefore that adoption and justification, while they have a very great alliance with eternity, and were virtually done then, yet have both of them such a near relation to us in time, and such a bearing upon our own personal standing and character that they have also a part and parcel of themselves actually carried out and performed in time in the heart of every believer. I may be wrong in this exposition; it requires much more time to study this subject than I have been able yet to give to it, seeing that my years are not yet many; I shall no doubt by degrees come to the knowledge more fully of such high and mysterious points of gospel doctrine.

But nevertheless, while I find the majority of sound divines holding that the works of justification and adoption are due in our lives I see, on the other hand, in Scripture much to lead me to believe that both of them were done in eternity; and I think the fairest view of the case is, that while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time,—so that both the Westminster confession and the idea of Dr. Gill can be proved to be Scriptural, and we may hold them both without any prejudice the one to the other.

From: _C.H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 7, Page 180, 81_​


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> I took the time to read much of the articles. All you're saying is that you believe that the WCF is right but you prefer your terminology - terminology that doesn't exist in the Word. The WCF and Reformed Confessions preserve the notion that Justification is based in eternity.
> 
> I just find it odd that people would want to insist upon using different terminology to express the same idea when the immediate reaction from every Confessional person would be to question what you mean, only to have you get into a long discussion that you're saying the same thing. Why not just strive for unity up front instead of sowing potential discord over a term?



Personally I do not think that EJ is explicitly taught in the confessions. They do not condemn it when correctly understood even though some will claim it is condemned by the statements puritancovenanter used previously and we find articles such as this. 

If you accept that we were justified _in Christ _in eternity and at the cross and later _in our own person _by faith in time then we have no quarel


----------



## Andrew P.C.

AV1611 said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard,
> 
> I thank you so much for your links to covenant theology by the way.
> 
> A quick note though. I find no scriptural justification for being "justified" in eternity past. If this is what you believe(since I'm confused by your terminology) then I would ask that you provide scriptural evidence. You quoting other men is as valid as me quoting Darwin to state evolution is right(which I don't believe).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a logical issue similar to the issue of a Covenant of Redemption, the lapsarian issue,etc. Scripture supports it, no confessions condemn it (whether they explicitly teach it is a different issue) but it is not a proof texting issue as such.
> 
> Spurgeon:
> 
> But there are one or two acts of God which, while they certainly are decreed as much as other things, yet they bear such a special relation to God's predestination that it is rather difficult to say whether they were done in eternity or whether they were done in time. Election is one of those things which were done absolutely in eternity; all who were elect, were elect as much in eternity as they are in time. But you may say, "Does the like affirmation apply to adoption or justification?" My late eminent and now glorified predecessor, Dr. Gill, diligently studying these doctrines, said that adoption was the act of God in eternity, and that as all believers were elect in eternity, so beyond a doubt they were adopted in eternity. He went further than that to include the doctrine of justification and he said that inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds.
> 
> Now, I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he said, though there was a considerable outcry raised against him at the time he first uttered it. However, that being a high and mysterious point, we would have you accept the doctrine that all those who are saved at last were elect in eternity when the means as well the end were determined. With regard to adoption, I believe we were predestined hereunto in eternity, but I do think there are some points with regard to adoption which will not allow me to consider the act of adoption to have been completed in eternity. For instance, the positive translation of my soul from a state of nature into a state of grace is a part of adoption or at least it is an effect at it, and so close an effect that it really seems to be a part of adoption itself: I believe that this was designed, and in fact that it was virtually carried out in God's everlasting covenant; but I think that it was that actually then brought to pass in all its fullness.
> 
> So with regard to justification, I must hold, that in the moment when Jesus Christ paid my debts, my debts were cancelled—in the hour when he worked out for me a perfect righteousness it was imputed to me, and therefore I may as a believer say I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec; but I know likewise that justification is described in the Scriptures as passing upon me at the time I believe. "Being justified by faith," I am told "I have peace with God, through Jesus Christ." I think, therefore that adoption and justification, while they have a very great alliance with eternity, and were virtually done then, yet have both of them such a near relation to us in time, and such a bearing upon our own personal standing and character that they have also a part and parcel of themselves actually carried out and performed in time in the heart of every believer. I may be wrong in this exposition; it requires much more time to study this subject than I have been able yet to give to it, seeing that my years are not yet many; I shall no doubt by degrees come to the knowledge more fully of such high and mysterious points of gospel doctrine.
> 
> But nevertheless, while I find the majority of sound divines holding that the works of justification and adoption are due in our lives I see, on the other hand, in Scripture much to lead me to believe that both of them were done in eternity; and I think the fairest view of the case is, that while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time,—so that both the Westminster confession and the idea of Dr. Gill can be proved to be Scriptural, and we may hold them both without any prejudice the one to the other.
> 
> From: _C.H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 7, Page 180, 81_​
Click to expand...


Richard, 

I don't think you understand what I'm asking. Let me ask another way; are you born justified?


----------

