Why John MacArthur became a Calvinist.

Assurance of salvation in the Calvinist scheme is indeed a tad problematic in the existential sense, because though the Calvinist proclaims that God will ensure the perseverance of of the Saint (a sound theological proposition), he cannot be sure that he is one of the elect (being potentially self-deceived) and that he won't eventually fall away from faith
Assurance is the byproduct of perseverance. You don't behave, you have mental turmoil.
The fallacious premise in both of these statements is that assurance is a fruit of something we do, instead of faith in what Christ has done. Faith is the birthmark of election as stated in the letter cited by Ransom, For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. - 1 John 5:4

Whatever builds one's faith, apart from works, builds one's assurance. This is true for everyone no matter one's soteriology. The 'Calvinist scheme' is only 'problematic' if one is looking to the wrong things.
 
Let’s be honest, it wouldn’t matter if she had a doctorate in theology from a prestigious university, you still wouldn’t change your position. Same for me. You choose to interpret verses differently. And as far as I know, none of us are fluent in the ancient languages of the Bible, and none of us have access to the earliest texts, so we do the best with what we have.
Would to God honesty played a part in either of your interactions.
 
I started attending IFB, King James Only churches after joining the military in 1972 and my eyes were finally opened to the shallowness of evangelism I saw there. In a break between services from the Army to the Marine Corps I went back home and started attending a church affiliated with Highland Park Baptist Church which emphasized going door to door getting people to say a prayer for salvation. I was joined with someone who was supposed to teach me about “soul winning” and at one stop we knocked a lady with small crying children came to the screen door who obviously had no interest in anything we had to say and told us she didn’t have time to talk. The one “discipling” me on how to win a soul to Christ asked her if he could pray. While he was praying the sinner’s prayer on the porch, on the other side of the screen door she had walked off and so he was praying to himself. He angrily told me as we walked away that if she didn’t want to get saved that was up to her. He had planned on using that sinner’s prayer as another notch on his belt to brag about how many souls he had won on visitation.

It took many years for me to finally break from that brand of Christianity since I had been brainwashed to believe that all the other denominations were compromisers. I remember when Curtis Hutson took over the Sword of the Lord organization and expunged “repentance” from all their hymn books, Jack Hyles joined in along with many other anti-Calvinist Baptists who preached that salvation was simply “believing” with the head while teaching any requirements of “turning from sin” (which the Bible teaches) was a “works salvation.” Steven Anderson who supported Jack Hyles and Bob Gray in Texas among others actually had a “Repentance Blacklist” where he condemned everyone to hell from Charles Spurgeon to Billy Graham and everyone else that dared to preach that sinners must “repent and believe the gospel.”

Calvinists
emphasize the sovereignty of God while the anti-Calvinists emphasize the responsibility of man while the Bible teaches both! The only problem is no one has been able to fully reconcile both these truths with our limited human understanding. Charles Spurgeon acknowledged this problem. Extreme positions on both sides are detrimental to the cause of Christ. No one in church history was more evangelistic than Charles Spurgeon and reading his sermons make that obvious.

One problem I see with Calvinism is their marching orders come from following the T.U.L.I.P. to the point that any deviation from those points are considered unorthodox. For example, the belief in limited atonement (Jesus only shed his blood for the elect) was not sufficient for the sins of the entire world when the apostle Peter seems clear that Jesus shed His blood for even false prophets who deny Him (2 Peter 2:1-22). If someone disagrees with any point whatsoever with what Calvin believed they are “Arminians.”

For those anti-Calvinists who are cock-sure they are going to heaven because they “believe” in Jesus, the Bible has frightening warnings to them. In the context of 2 Corinthians 12:21 and the entire book of Corinthians. In chapter 13 verse 5 the apostle Paul warns those who claim to be Christians to “examine themselves” as to whether they are in the faith lest they be found to be “reprobates.” See also the dire warnings in 1 John. Jesus also warned that on the day of judgment:
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
 
Last edited:
The fallacious premise in both of these statements is that assurance is a fruit of something we do, instead of faith in what Christ has done.
You misunderstand the difference between preservation and perseverance. Do you reject progressive sanctification as well? We are to actively work out our salvation.
 
You misunderstand the difference between preservation and perseverance. Do you reject progressive sanctification as well? We are to actively work out our salvation.
All I'm saying is we have to believe God's promises if they're going to bring any comfort. That's what real faith is, and where real assurance comes from.

That's something altogether different than sanctification. So if you're looking to your degree of sanctification for assurance of your election, you're looking in the wrong place.

Calvinism is indeed problematic for assurance for those looking in the wrong place. One has to wonder about those soteriologies that are not similarly problematic.
 
Last edited:
All I'm saying is we have to believe God's promises if they're going to bring any comfort. That's what real faith is, and where real assurance comes from.

That's something altogether different than sanctification. So if you're looking to your degree of sanctification for assurance of your election, you're looking in the wrong place.

Calvinism is indeed problematic for assurance for those looking in the wrong place. One has to wonder about those soteriologies that are not similarly problematic.
What about the warning passages?
What about the passages in James?

Are you a Free Grace advocate?
 
One of the biggest problems I had with Calvinism was Romans 9. The apostle Paul talks about how God chooses some vessels for wrath and others for mercy, specifically verse 22 where it says God fitted vessels for the main purpose of destruction. I got a MacArthur Study Bible and looked at what others had to say concerning this subject because it made no sense to me. Many people look at election in a negative light whereas in reality election is nothing more than the grace of God. If God did not choose some for salvation then no one would be saved because there is no one that seeks after God, no not one (Rom 3:11).

Rom 9:16 “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” God’s mercy is not in response to man’s will. Nor is God’s mercy a response to man’s effort. God is free to show mercy to whomever He wills, independently of what they do.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

God does not make men sinful, but leaves them in the sin they have chosen. In Romans 9:20 Paul is not addressing those with honest questions about this difficult doctrine, but those who seek to excuse their own sin and unbelief (v. 22). God receives glory in his wrath as well as his mercy. God allows some vessels to incur the just penalty of their sin; God’s wrath.

Charles Spurgeon believed all men have a free will. The only problem is we are sinful by nature and we will always choose to do wrong according to our nature. Unless God in His grace steps in the entire human race would go to hell with no exceptions.

John 6:44 “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” God draws all men without distinction (Jew or Gentile – Acts 10:34), not without exception.
 
What about the warning passages?
What about the passages in James?
One certainly doesn't look there for assurance, and I certainly wouldn't send a doubter there. Are you one to quench smoking flax or break a bruised reed?

Jesus isn't.

Those passages are for those who are proud and complacent and have a false sense of security. And if they are believers, those passages would drive them to others like 1 John.

Are you a Free Grace advocate?
Grace is free by definition. Election is unconditional. But what do you mean by the proper noun, Free Grace?
 
It is not specifically my brother. My question is, why does any person make the superior choice to believe? Do you believe that there is something within that person that makes them a better chooser? I know you will not answer the question in the affirmative. I believe that God is sovereign in salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith, not works. Lest any person should boast. The point of not boasting is that there is nothing within you that makes you differ from any other person. If you say "I chose," I want to know, why?. What was it prior to that choice that led you to make the morally superior decision to believe?
The Holy Spirit came to me.
 
The only thing I’ve ever been taught is the age of accountability. I never was taught a different viewpoint in the Baptist or Catholic churches. It seems like one of those points that no one can ever definitively know one way or the other—something unknown until the afterlife. No disrespect intended, it just would make me reject Christianity if true, but I’m not too worried about it since no one can prove it is true.
The Federalist view (Covenant Theology) makes provision for an "age of accountablility" although most Covenant Theologians probably would not use the term. I have heard RC Sproul argue that an infant child likely has no cognizance of the invisible things of God's creation and therefore could not be rendered "guilty." On the other side, the scriptures are quite clear that God has used the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe so if a child is incapable of comprehending and responding to the gospel message, does this mean that salvation is not possible for anyone who dies in infancy?

Those who hold to a Seminal view (Catholics, Lutherans, Some Reformed) are the ones who say an infant is "doomed from the womb" unless they are either properly baptized (Catholic, Lutheran) or "elected" by God (Equal ultimacy, "Hyper" Calvinists).

I would be very cautious about making any sort of condition that would "make me reject Christianity" TBH! Remember that we serve a sovereign God who does as he pleases and is a GOOD God despite our inability at times to grasp ahold of this goodness! We WILL understand it better by and by!

And for the record, my personal opinion regarding those who die in infancy or before they are born is that they are all ELECT of God for the reasons afforementioned! For the most part, I will plead ignorance and rest in the fact that we will understand it better by and by!
 
1. 1 John says we can know. It was written specifically for that.

2. "One of the elect" is just another biblical-ish way of saying "a Christian." How can we know we are a Christian? Again, see #1.

3. Assurance isn't specifically a Calvinist problem. But Calvinist theology is cohesive and gives a strong theological basis for it.
Calvin's "evanescent grace" demonstrates the inherent flaw with the notion of God's granting of false assurance.
 
Have you read Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie or follow Dallas Theological Seminary?
I have not, but a cursory Internet search reveals that what you are calling Free Grace is what was called in my circles 'easy believeism'. Both are unfortunate monikers.

No, the grace of God is not a license for immorality, and no one with real faith thinks so. Again, if one is looking to his degree of sanctification, or to anything other than the finished work of Christ for their assurance of salvation, they are being beset by a form of legalism.

Again, the birthmark of election is faith. If the noncal thinks he has a clearer path to assurance than the Calvinist, he doesn't know faith.
 
Last edited:
From the Westminster Confession

IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness, and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.


Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 96–98.
 
From the Westminster Confession

IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness, and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.


Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 96–98.
Yeah...this article needs to be clipped from the confession and burned. As written it doesn't have anyone looking to Jesus at all. It doesn't send anyone boldly to the Throne of Grace. It takes one's focus off the Cross, and the worst thing is, it seems to make the gift of the Holy Spirit, that is, His witness to our spirits that we are the children of God, something to be worked for, instead of asked for, as if we can make up for our backsliding with a season of 'behaving,' as you put it.

It does have this...'and by the which [the Spirit], in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.' Faith is a fruit of the Spirit, and the birthmark of election.

I said they were unfortunate monikers, because grace is free, and Christ's yoke is easy. What but a devil would rob fallen or weak and timid Christians of the strength those truths lend to their faith?

 
Have you read Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie or follow Dallas Theological Seminary?
I've read them all, especially Hodges and Ryrie, also Chafer and McClain and remained unconvinced of the FREE Grace theology.
 
The word "instigator" is a bit misleading in your question, for we know salvation is of the Lord, by His initiating grace. Having said that, Paul seems to be appealing to natural revelation as an agent for men to approach knowledge of God in Acts 17:27.


Acts 17:27 that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
I meant instigator in its basic meaning - one who causes something to happen.

biscuit quoted John 6:44 earlier in the thread:
“No one can come to be except the Father draws him.”
The word draw" is the Greek word helkúō which has a range of meanings including "to draw, pull, or drag". In John 21:6, the word is used to describe hauling a net full of fish to shore and in Acts 16:19, it's used to describe Paul and Silas being dragged into the marketplace.

Who instigated those actions?
 
Back
Top