John MacArthur on Calvinism and Arminianism
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
he is so off base
All of the videos free-willers post are unbiblical. That's much more off base.
civic
Well-known member
not really I have every single book he has written, his commentaries, cassettes of sermons etc...... I believed exactly like Mac for 4 decades including his eschatology.
are you pre trib like him too ?
civic
Well-known member
Mac is confused and contradicts himself below:
“Dr. MacArthur, you gave us two scriptures that popped out to me. The natural man cannot get to God in his unaided condition. And then in Acts, God now commands all men everywhere to repent. So, does that mean God would help everyone to repent since he commands it?[34]
MacArthur answers,
“The question you’re asking is why would God command all men everywhere to repent if they can’t unless he aids them. The answer to the question is, I don’t know why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is.”[35]
The questioner follows up with,
“So not everybody can be saved then?”[36]
At which point MacArthur interjects, saying,
“Everyone is held culpable and guilty for not repenting. Everyone is culpable for his own sin. Guilty before God for his own sin. Like the second Thessalonians passage, God will deal out, when Christ returns, retribution to those who know not God and believe not the gospel. This is the great ultimate question that you come to in the doctrines of grace – is personal moral responsibility and the sovereignty of God. How do those two things come together. Clearly they are taught in Scripture. Clearly they are both taught in Scripture. What you want to avoid is some middle ground that assaults both of those things. But that’s for God to fully resolve in his own mind. All men are sinners. All men are culpable. All men are guilty. All men are commanded to repent. All men are in disobedience and in violation of that command, yet at the same time they’re unable to respond apart from the intervening sovereign grace of God. That is what the Bible teaches. The resolution of that is, I think, clear to the mind of God, but difficult for us to understand.”[37]
True to the title of the conference MacArthur was faced with a tough question here. But it is only tough for him because of his deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty.
Note that he does not give a direct answer to the question except to say, “The answer to the question is, I don’t know why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is.” He states, “This is the great ultimate question that you come to in the doctrines of grace – is personal moral responsibility and the sovereignty of God.”
It is important to realize that we only come to this “great ultimate question” because of the determinism inherent in “the doctrines of grace,” which is a euphemism for the Calvinist soteriological doctrines (i.e., TULIP). It is the determinism inherent in “the doctrines of grace” that generates this “great ultimate question” which I submit should be more appropriately designated the “great ultimate contradiction.” Because MacArthur’s theistic determinism is taken for granted as biblical teaching, and he must also admit to the non-deterministic biblical teaching on man’s culpability for sin and the responsibility to repent in light of God’s command to do so, he therefore affirms that the reality of God’s interaction with human persons is both deterministic and non-deterministic. Therefore, he holds to a contradiction. But rather than face the fact that his position is inherently contradictory, he declares it a mystery and pleads ignorance. He states, “I don’t know why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is.”
I think MacArthur must ultimately know and believe that his position is contradictory, otherwise he would have provided a response that resolved the problem the questioner posed. For instance, why didn’t he explain compatibilism to the questioner if that really does address this contradiction in his position as many Calvinists claim? It is only when the Calvinist runs into a real rational or moral cul-de-sac that they have to bail themselves out with statements like “But that’s for God to fully resolve in his own mind” and “The resolution of that is, I think, clear to the mind of God, but difficult for us to understand.” But this ignores the fact that the laws of logic and non-contradiction are the very way the mind of God works. This is an attempt to pass off on God something that we can see is a real contradiction. It is not a mystery that lies somehow resolved within the mind of God but to us looks like a contradiction. That is to tell us that what we see to be a contradiction is not. But if God is the source our laws of logic and moral intuitions, especially if they are essential to his very nature, and therefore they are fundamental to our being as the biblical teaching on being made in the image of God would affirm, then God will have none of these results of poor interpretation of his Scripture foisted upon him and neither should we. Because God is beyond our comprehension in certain ways, he can’t be used as the excuse for the contradiction generated by the Calvinist’s deterministic definition of divine sovereignty. So all we are given is the flight to mystery and the question begging assertions that this is what the Bible teaches.
So what is “the way” that God “chose to do it” that MacArthur is referring to here? “The way” God “chose to do it” is apparently to have decided, “I have predetermined who will be saved and that this will involve that they repent and believe. And because they cannot repent and believe unless I effectively work repentance and belief in them, therefore I will effectively work repentance and belief only in those persons I have chosen to save (determinism). Yet, I also declare that all individuals have personal moral responsibility and I will also hold all persons responsible for their disobedience in refusing to repent and believe (non-determinism).[38] The non-elect cannot repent and believe because I will not work effectively in them (determinism), yet I also hold them responsible for not doing so (non-determinism). MacArthur’s position sets up an obvious contradiction. MacArthur affirms the non-determinism of culpability for sin and responsibility to repent and believe the gospel while also affirming that God determines all things, including in whom he will effectually work repentance and belief in “the gospel.”
It is as MacArthur says, “All men are commanded to repent” and “Everyone is held culpable and guilty for not repenting” and “God will deal out, when Christ returns, retribution to those who know not God and believe not the gospel” and yet “they’re unable to respond apart from the intervening sovereign grace of God.” The phrase “apart from the intervening sovereign grace of God” means “apart from being predestined to salvation.”
MacArthur is definitely affirming both determinism and non-determinism otherwise there would be no problem here. MacArthur asserts that “Clearly they are both taught in Scripture.” But this begs the question. Is it true that “Clearly they are both taught in Scripture?” Why is it “clear” that a deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty is taught in Scripture when it runs roughshod over so much of what is taught in Scripture on human culpability, responsibility and contingency? What does this insistence that “both are taught in Scripture” demonstrate? It demonstrates that rational and moral coherence are hermeneutically insignificant to MacArthur. Despite the contradictory nature of his position, he finds in this no reason to doubt the accuracy of his interpretations. For MacArthur rational and moral incoherence and contradiction play no role as a check upon his exegesis of the text. This being the case, it seems that there is nothing that could ever cast doubt upon MacArthur’s soteriology or theology. Therefore he can and must continue to merely assert “This is what the Bible teaches.”
R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur and Ligon Duncan and the Suppression of Reason
During the “Tough Questions Christians Face: 2008 West Coast Conference” a woman asked John MacArthur the following question.“Dr. MacArthur, you gave us two scriptures that popped out to me. The natural man cannot get to God in his unaided condition. And then in Acts, God now commands all men everywhere to repent. So, does that mean God would help everyone to repent since he commands it?[34]
MacArthur answers,
“The question you’re asking is why would God command all men everywhere to repent if they can’t unless he aids them. The answer to the question is, I don’t know why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is.”[35]
The questioner follows up with,
“So not everybody can be saved then?”[36]
At which point MacArthur interjects, saying,
“Everyone is held culpable and guilty for not repenting. Everyone is culpable for his own sin. Guilty before God for his own sin. Like the second Thessalonians passage, God will deal out, when Christ returns, retribution to those who know not God and believe not the gospel. This is the great ultimate question that you come to in the doctrines of grace – is personal moral responsibility and the sovereignty of God. How do those two things come together. Clearly they are taught in Scripture. Clearly they are both taught in Scripture. What you want to avoid is some middle ground that assaults both of those things. But that’s for God to fully resolve in his own mind. All men are sinners. All men are culpable. All men are guilty. All men are commanded to repent. All men are in disobedience and in violation of that command, yet at the same time they’re unable to respond apart from the intervening sovereign grace of God. That is what the Bible teaches. The resolution of that is, I think, clear to the mind of God, but difficult for us to understand.”[37]
True to the title of the conference MacArthur was faced with a tough question here. But it is only tough for him because of his deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty.
Note that he does not give a direct answer to the question except to say, “The answer to the question is, I don’t know why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is.” He states, “This is the great ultimate question that you come to in the doctrines of grace – is personal moral responsibility and the sovereignty of God.”
It is important to realize that we only come to this “great ultimate question” because of the determinism inherent in “the doctrines of grace,” which is a euphemism for the Calvinist soteriological doctrines (i.e., TULIP). It is the determinism inherent in “the doctrines of grace” that generates this “great ultimate question” which I submit should be more appropriately designated the “great ultimate contradiction.” Because MacArthur’s theistic determinism is taken for granted as biblical teaching, and he must also admit to the non-deterministic biblical teaching on man’s culpability for sin and the responsibility to repent in light of God’s command to do so, he therefore affirms that the reality of God’s interaction with human persons is both deterministic and non-deterministic. Therefore, he holds to a contradiction. But rather than face the fact that his position is inherently contradictory, he declares it a mystery and pleads ignorance. He states, “I don’t know why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is.”
I think MacArthur must ultimately know and believe that his position is contradictory, otherwise he would have provided a response that resolved the problem the questioner posed. For instance, why didn’t he explain compatibilism to the questioner if that really does address this contradiction in his position as many Calvinists claim? It is only when the Calvinist runs into a real rational or moral cul-de-sac that they have to bail themselves out with statements like “But that’s for God to fully resolve in his own mind” and “The resolution of that is, I think, clear to the mind of God, but difficult for us to understand.” But this ignores the fact that the laws of logic and non-contradiction are the very way the mind of God works. This is an attempt to pass off on God something that we can see is a real contradiction. It is not a mystery that lies somehow resolved within the mind of God but to us looks like a contradiction. That is to tell us that what we see to be a contradiction is not. But if God is the source our laws of logic and moral intuitions, especially if they are essential to his very nature, and therefore they are fundamental to our being as the biblical teaching on being made in the image of God would affirm, then God will have none of these results of poor interpretation of his Scripture foisted upon him and neither should we. Because God is beyond our comprehension in certain ways, he can’t be used as the excuse for the contradiction generated by the Calvinist’s deterministic definition of divine sovereignty. So all we are given is the flight to mystery and the question begging assertions that this is what the Bible teaches.
So what is “the way” that God “chose to do it” that MacArthur is referring to here? “The way” God “chose to do it” is apparently to have decided, “I have predetermined who will be saved and that this will involve that they repent and believe. And because they cannot repent and believe unless I effectively work repentance and belief in them, therefore I will effectively work repentance and belief only in those persons I have chosen to save (determinism). Yet, I also declare that all individuals have personal moral responsibility and I will also hold all persons responsible for their disobedience in refusing to repent and believe (non-determinism).[38] The non-elect cannot repent and believe because I will not work effectively in them (determinism), yet I also hold them responsible for not doing so (non-determinism). MacArthur’s position sets up an obvious contradiction. MacArthur affirms the non-determinism of culpability for sin and responsibility to repent and believe the gospel while also affirming that God determines all things, including in whom he will effectually work repentance and belief in “the gospel.”
It is as MacArthur says, “All men are commanded to repent” and “Everyone is held culpable and guilty for not repenting” and “God will deal out, when Christ returns, retribution to those who know not God and believe not the gospel” and yet “they’re unable to respond apart from the intervening sovereign grace of God.” The phrase “apart from the intervening sovereign grace of God” means “apart from being predestined to salvation.”
MacArthur is definitely affirming both determinism and non-determinism otherwise there would be no problem here. MacArthur asserts that “Clearly they are both taught in Scripture.” But this begs the question. Is it true that “Clearly they are both taught in Scripture?” Why is it “clear” that a deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty is taught in Scripture when it runs roughshod over so much of what is taught in Scripture on human culpability, responsibility and contingency? What does this insistence that “both are taught in Scripture” demonstrate? It demonstrates that rational and moral coherence are hermeneutically insignificant to MacArthur. Despite the contradictory nature of his position, he finds in this no reason to doubt the accuracy of his interpretations. For MacArthur rational and moral incoherence and contradiction play no role as a check upon his exegesis of the text. This being the case, it seems that there is nothing that could ever cast doubt upon MacArthur’s soteriology or theology. Therefore he can and must continue to merely assert “This is what the Bible teaches.”
civic
Well-known member
From Macs website.
“But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.” Now just think about that in an evangelistic context. Understand this, when you go to give someone the gospel: Because it’s the truth, they can’t believe it. Did you get that? Because it’s the truth, they can’t receive it. Because they are preprogrammed to believe lies. Verse 47, “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
Did you read that all men are preprogrammed to believe lies. This is what determinism teaches, what the doctrine of total depravity teaches and why irresistible grace much be believed in calvinism. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-132/the-most-hated-christian-doctrine
Robots and Computers are preprogrammed by their designers just like man in Calvinism. This is deterministic fatalism.
Preprogrammed definition: (of instructions or data) programmed into an electronic device to control future action.
"the drones are designed to follow a preprogrammed route at the push of a button"
defined for clarity in this discussion.
God by means of divine decree determines all peoples decisions/actions
Potter by means of molding determines all pots decisions,actions,shapes, etc...
Programmer by means of preprogramming determines the Avatars/Robots decisions and actions
Puppeteer by means of strings determines all the puppets movements, actions, decisions
Author by means of writing a story determines all characters decisions, actions
This life in calvinism has everything completely and fully scripted with every thought, action, deed. Welcome to the world of the avatar. The world of make belief- sounds much like the world of Walt Disney.
hope this helps !!!
“But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.” Now just think about that in an evangelistic context. Understand this, when you go to give someone the gospel: Because it’s the truth, they can’t believe it. Did you get that? Because it’s the truth, they can’t receive it. Because they are preprogrammed to believe lies. Verse 47, “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
Did you read that all men are preprogrammed to believe lies. This is what determinism teaches, what the doctrine of total depravity teaches and why irresistible grace much be believed in calvinism. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-132/the-most-hated-christian-doctrine
Robots and Computers are preprogrammed by their designers just like man in Calvinism. This is deterministic fatalism.
Preprogrammed definition: (of instructions or data) programmed into an electronic device to control future action.
"the drones are designed to follow a preprogrammed route at the push of a button"
defined for clarity in this discussion.
God by means of divine decree determines all peoples decisions/actions
Potter by means of molding determines all pots decisions,actions,shapes, etc...
Programmer by means of preprogramming determines the Avatars/Robots decisions and actions
Puppeteer by means of strings determines all the puppets movements, actions, decisions
Author by means of writing a story determines all characters decisions, actions
This life in calvinism has everything completely and fully scripted with every thought, action, deed. Welcome to the world of the avatar. The world of make belief- sounds much like the world of Walt Disney.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
Here is John MacArthur
The reality of Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary death on our behalf is the heart of the gospel according to God—the central theme of Isaiah 53.
We must remember, however, that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servant’s death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for sins others had committed. That is what we mean when we speak of penal substitutionary atonement. Again, if the idea seems shocking and disturbing, it is meant to be. Unless you recoil from the thought, you probably haven’t grasped it yet. “Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). This is one of the major reasons the gospel is a stumbling block to Jews, and it’s sheer foolishness as far as Gentiles are concerned (1 Cor. 1:23). “But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, [the message of Christ crucified embodies both] the power of God and the wisdom of God” (v. 24).
A Shocking Truth
The reality of Christ’s vicarious, substitutionary death on our behalf is the heart of the gospel according to God—the central theme of Isaiah 53.
We must remember, however, that sin did not kill Jesus; God did. The suffering servant’s death was nothing less than a punishment administered by God for sins others had committed. That is what we mean when we speak of penal substitutionary atonement. Again, if the idea seems shocking and disturbing, it is meant to be. Unless you recoil from the thought, you probably haven’t grasped it yet. “Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). This is one of the major reasons the gospel is a stumbling block to Jews, and it’s sheer foolishness as far as Gentiles are concerned (1 Cor. 1:23). “But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, [the message of Christ crucified embodies both] the power of God and the wisdom of God” (v. 24).
civic
Well-known member
Birds of a feather how is this list of your peers @Presby02 ?
MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, White, Spurgeon, Edwards teach.
The Famous Calvinist John Piper who gets it from the WCF says the following about evil taken from desiring god website :
"Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Exodus 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Hebrews 12:3-11; James 1:2-4).
This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4, NASB). “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14, NIV)." https://www.desiringgod.org/message...ds-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-us
RC below
R.C. Sproul, clarifies: “The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin. This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.” (Double Predestination, emphasis mine)
According to Sproul, it is undeniable that God is made the author of sin IF, from all eternity, He has decreed anyone to sin and damnation by efficaciously working sin in their lives. Such a thing, he calls a “monstrous assault on the integrity of God.” However, is that not exactly what John Calvin taught, then denied, then affirmed and then declared that curious men are not to peer into the secrets of God, just as we are not to curiously peer into the Sun itself? As Calvin speaks, what you will find is that God is made the author of sin, but is not to be held guilty of sin because He allegedly brings it about through secondary causes, while He Himself is the proximate cause and Determiner. But first, Calvin will explain the Providence of God from the Deterministic perspective, and then he will address his opponents, and finally he will condemn the curious who seek to examine him too fully.
John Calvin writes: “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” (Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121, emphasis mine)
John Calvin explains: “God had no doubt decreedbefore the foundation of the world what He would do with every one of us and had assigned to everyone by His secret counsel his part in life.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, p.20, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “…the reason why God elects some and rejects others is to be found in His purpose alone. … before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the secret will of God. … the salvation or the destruction of men depends on His free election.” (Calvin’s New Testament
Home
conclusion: the above described god is not the God of the Bible. The facts are calvin quoted augustine several hundred times in the institutes. the fact is augustine was pagan, gnostic and into greek philosophy which he mixed together with Christianity and married the two of them together to create a corrupt theology that was held by the reformers. The apple as the say does not fall far from the tree. Calvin was a student of augustine who corrupted the early church with his pagan/gnostic doctrines about God.
John Calvin wrote, "Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings."
Straight from the horses mouth !
hope this helps !!!
MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, White, Spurgeon, Edwards teach.
The Famous Calvinist John Piper who gets it from the WCF says the following about evil taken from desiring god website :
"Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Exodus 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Hebrews 12:3-11; James 1:2-4).
This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4, NASB). “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14, NIV)." https://www.desiringgod.org/message...ds-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-us
RC below
R.C. Sproul, clarifies: “The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin. This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.” (Double Predestination, emphasis mine)
According to Sproul, it is undeniable that God is made the author of sin IF, from all eternity, He has decreed anyone to sin and damnation by efficaciously working sin in their lives. Such a thing, he calls a “monstrous assault on the integrity of God.” However, is that not exactly what John Calvin taught, then denied, then affirmed and then declared that curious men are not to peer into the secrets of God, just as we are not to curiously peer into the Sun itself? As Calvin speaks, what you will find is that God is made the author of sin, but is not to be held guilty of sin because He allegedly brings it about through secondary causes, while He Himself is the proximate cause and Determiner. But first, Calvin will explain the Providence of God from the Deterministic perspective, and then he will address his opponents, and finally he will condemn the curious who seek to examine him too fully.
John Calvin writes: “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” (Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121, emphasis mine)
John Calvin explains: “God had no doubt decreedbefore the foundation of the world what He would do with every one of us and had assigned to everyone by His secret counsel his part in life.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, p.20, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “…the reason why God elects some and rejects others is to be found in His purpose alone. … before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the secret will of God. … the salvation or the destruction of men depends on His free election.” (Calvin’s New Testament
Home
conclusion: the above described god is not the God of the Bible. The facts are calvin quoted augustine several hundred times in the institutes. the fact is augustine was pagan, gnostic and into greek philosophy which he mixed together with Christianity and married the two of them together to create a corrupt theology that was held by the reformers. The apple as the say does not fall far from the tree. Calvin was a student of augustine who corrupted the early church with his pagan/gnostic doctrines about God.
John Calvin wrote, "Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings."
Straight from the horses mouth !
hope this helps !!!
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
BTW. Like not knowing Calvin, you don't know Mac. Civic does. I've seen him quite Mac more than any man I know....
civic
Well-known member
theology assassination huge difference. He is my favorite calvinist. I still have several dozen of his book in my library.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
theology assassination huge difference. He is my favorite calvinist. I still have several dozen of his book in my library.
You didn't bother to respond to any of his scriptural or historical points in that video. You just went on a rampage attacking what OTHER things he said, as well as things said by others like Calvin and Sproul. That is your regular MO.
Let me borrow a thought from a quote attributed to a number of people (not one for certain):
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and little minds discuss people.
And? So what. Augustine was a great ECF.
civic
Well-known member
The worst heretic of all who married Gnosticism , Paganism and Greek Philosophy with Christianity.
This is simply a statement. A ignorant one as well. And is proof of nothing
civic
Well-known member
Its the historical facts which you are denying about augustine. There are several threads proving I'm 100% correct. I know my church history.
See here
and here
hope this helps !!!
LOL, cutting and pasting is not knowing church history.Its the historical facts which you are denying about augustine. There are several threads proving I'm 100% correct. I know my church history.
See here
and here
hope this helps !!!
Another silly boisterous claim.
Similar threads
