Why John MacArthur became a Calvinist.

ALAYMAN said:
And Wesley didn't because it did.
Click to expand...
If you think a faithless election, as in the case of some infants, is in line with Calivinist doctrine, then you don't understand Calvinism, which is just a name for the doctrine of election. And that would be why you'd think the Bible gives another option.
 
Ekklesian said:
If you think a faithless election, as in the case of some infants, is in line with Calivinist doctrine, then you don't understand Calvinism, which is just a name for the doctrine of election. And that would be why you'd think the Bible gives another option.
Click to expand...
Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically say that infants may or may not burn in hell for eternity.
 
FSSL said:
... where does the Bible allow Wesley to believe that one can lose his salvation?
Click to expand...
Wesley believed, conscientiously, that it did. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind. Like Luther, Wesley, et al, I don't believe what I do because of Calvin, MacArthur, or any other person, influential or otherwise. ☺️
 
FSSL said:
That's what happens when you are confronted with a Gospel based on repentance, forgiveness and the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
Click to expand...
Which one of these doctrines didn't Wesley believe?
 
Ransom said:
Imputation. He thought the doctrine was unscriptural and an impediment to holiness.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I admit that I was unaware of the controversy. Just another reason why I came to the FFF and still do.

Regarding his thoughts on imputation...


“Do we read it [this question] in the Bible? Either in the Old Testament or the New? I doubt; it is an unscriptural, awkward phrase, which has no determinate meaning. If you mean by that odd, uncouth question: ‘In whose righteousness are you to stand at the last day,’- for whose sake, or by whose merit do you expect to enter into the glory of God? I answer, without the least hesitation, for the sake of Jesus Christ, the righteous. It is through his merits alone that all believers are saved; that is, justified, saved from the guilt, sanctified, saved from the nature of sin, and glorified, taken into heaven… It may be worth our while, to spend a few more words on this important point. Is it possible to devise a more unintelligible expression than this: “In what righteousness are we to stand before God at the last day?” Why do you not speak plainly, and say, “For whose sake do you look to be saved?” Any plain peasant would then readily answer, “For the sake of Jesus Christ.” But all those dark, ambiguous phrases, tend only to puzzle the cause, and open a way for unwary hearers to slide into Antinomianism.” “The Works of the Rev. John Wesley”, Volume 7, published by J. & J. Harper, 1826, Page 281'
 
ALAYMAN said:
Regarding his thoughts on imputation...
Click to expand...

To expand on what I said earlier, it appears Wesley changed his mind over time, coming to accept the doctrine.

That said, I don't see how one can accept the doctrine of imputation of Christ's righteousness and simultaneously believe you can fall from grace. Such entails that Christ's perfect merit was insufficient, or it only applied to past sins, or in some other sense renders the atonement unable to save someone fully.
 
Ransom said:
Objections to Calvinism inevitably lead to tearjerking about the poor little babies.
Click to expand...
I just need a chapter and verse within context to change my mind.

Trust me, I have no problem admitting I’m wrong if these claims can be clearly taught from scripture like the gospel or being faithful to your spouse or stealing, cheating. Things clearly taught in scripture.

Can this claim be found and clearly taught in scripture?
 
Bruh said:
Can this claim be found and clearly taught in scripture?
Click to expand...

What claim? That infants "may or may not" (your words) go to hell? That's not a claim. It's noncommittal weaseling that can't even be pinned down to meaning something.
 
Calvinism is no different than Dispensationalism. Both have their extreme wings. Spurgeon and MacArthur (and many others) were just as emphatic on infants and little children falling under the umbrella of God’s grace as those on this forum who are constantly blasting out how the little ones burn in hell. Five point Calvinists emphasize that Christ shed His blood for only the elect while 2 Peter 2:1 clearly states that the blood of Christ paid for the sins of “false prophets who privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them.” You can find many points where Dispensationalists differ very strongly as well. The same division can be found concerning the Church and Israel among Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.

I mentioned in another thread about how Erwin Lutzer was sent a sermon on cassette tape entitled, “God is a Gambler.” In the sermon the pastor said that when God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden He was gambling that they wouldn’t sin. And then God decided to send his Son to die on the cross for our sins and was gambling that men and women would believe the gospel. In our finite minds that is the conclusion many come to. We think that God is a gambler and has lost control of His universe.

I personally have come to believe in the Calvinist viewpoint but try to show grace where our beliefs can’t be reconciled. This is what Charles Spurgeon (a dogmatic 5 point Calvinist) had to say about John Wesley.

“It will be time to find fault with John Wesley, not when we discover his mistakes, but when we have cured our own. When we shall have more piety, more grace, more fire, more burning love, more intense unselfishness, then and not till then, may we begin to find fault and criticize.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top