|
|
|
|
|
|
MacArthur's Evolving Views on the Atonement |
|
Since first publishing the article "Calvinism+Arminianism=Fullerism"
it has come to my attention that MacArthur's views regarding the atonement have
changed substantially. Originally, he espoused a General
Atonement/Fullerite belief, which is particularly scene in his quotes from 1978
and 1990. As of 1997, although MacArthur admits not wanting to be
dogmatic about it, he has evidently come to a closer understanding, if not
outright belief at that time, of Particular Redemption. Five of his 'Answers', given in chronological order from 1978 to 1997, are given
below.
Although the Primitive Baptists would not be completely satisfied, myself
included, with
his last two answers from 1997, they are much more sound doctrinally.
Furthermore,
every preacher should be accorded the opportunity for his views to change and
mature as we hope is the case with MacArthur. JT According to the transcriber, this tape was recorded in 1978. JT http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-O-4.htm 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-O, titled "Bible Questions and Answers Part 17." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. ©1978. All Rights Reserved. Question Answer Right. Question (continued) Then can you explain 1 Samuel 3:14? I believe that the death of Christ was efficacious for the entire world. But I believe the death of Christ has to be appropriated. Now, I think that’s answering your question more than dealing with the text of 1 Samuel, but let me go a step further. Historically, there have been some who have said that because Christ died for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2. That’s very hard to deny that, a limited atonement view finds it’s waterloo at 1 John 2. So if Christ died for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world, then that has been done. Now some have gone so far as to say, therefore, everyone’s sins in the entire world have already been atoned for and forgiven. All we have to do is simply take the gift or appropriate it. Now I wouldn’t go that far, I would say that the penalty has been paid but it is only applied through personal faith. 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. Now if you go back into the Old Testament what He is saying there is that the
house of Eli, that is the role of the priest, the function of the priest, the
exaltation, the lifting up, the righteousness of that house shall not exist
again. I don’t think that in anyway reflects upon an inability of Christ's death
to cover their sin, nor do I think it reflects on the fact that Christ didn’t
die for them. I think that simply what you have there is a statement by God that
because of evil and sin that house is removed permanently from any place of
divine purpose or sanctification, and the house will not be purged or its
iniquity purged, so that it can never again take the role of the priest. So
you’re talking about a priesthood in Samuel, you’re talking about salvation in
general in the New Testament doctrine of Christ atonement. Tony Capoccia According to Grace Community Church, this tape was recorded in 1990. JT http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-11-6.htm The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-11, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved. Question Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by: Tony Capoccia According to Grace Community Church, this tape was recorded in 1994. JT http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-15-3.htm The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-15, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Question Could you please clarify the extent of the atonement, limited versus unlimited? Answer 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. Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by: Tony Capoccia According to Grace Community Church, this tape was recorded in 1997. JT http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-17-2.htm The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-17, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved. Question Could you please explain Biblically for whom Christ died? And also, whether all of them that He died for will be saved? Answer 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. Tony Capoccia According to Grace Community Church, this tape was recorded in 1997. JT http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-17-9.htm The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-17, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved. 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 Yes. But don't go out and say "John MacArthur advocates 'Limited Atonement,' because I don't. And I will tell you why--because I don't like that term, because it is not Biblical. It is obvious when something is not explicitly stated in Scripture, and when you are dealing with the inscrutable nature of God and the mysteries of redemption, and the mysteries of the unfolding divine purpose, and the mind of God--there will always be grappling with these issues. Whatever it is that you believe about the inherent nature of the atonement, whatever it is that you believe about the limits of the atonement, whether they're there or not there--whatever it is that you believe about the actual efficaciousness of the death of Christ and to whom it is applied, whatever nuances of that discussion you particularly believe--in the end, the atonement will only have value to those who believe--whatever it is that you believe. My point is, arguing about that really is pointless in a sense. I understand the debate and I certainly engage in it heartily, but in the end we make our best shot. It is like trying to define the Trinity, it is like trying to unscrew the unscrutable, it's like trying to figure out things that are beyond our capacity--whether you're talking about the security of the believer measured against the perseverance of the saints, or you're talking about volition and divine election, whether you are talking about any of those kinds of issues, you are always are going to be in the dilemma, and that is why theological debates like this have gone on always. In the end, however, we don't need to separate, we don't need to become divisive, we don't need to sort of break fellowship over what exactly is the inherent, innate character of the atonement, because in the end, the death of Jesus Christ is only efficacious for those who believe. And in the end, whatever was going on, on the cross, it has no application to those who don't believe--right? So, whatever you want to say about it's inherent limits or non-limits--in the end you come to the same place. It is like the argument about Predestination--people always say, "Well, I just can't handle that God predestined. I just can't handle that He elected; I just think He knew what was going to happen." O.K., let's take that view: "God just knew what was going to happen." When did He know it? Well, He always knew it. Well, then if He always knew it, why did He create the people to whom it would happen, if He didn't want it to happen? Even if He knew it was going to happen and nothing more, and went ahead and created the people He knew it was going to happen too--He acted sovereignly in doing that--did He not? You can't escape these issues. I'm certainly not going to say all truth resides with me. I believe in a gospel offer that is universal. I understand the exegesis of 1 John 2:2, that "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world." I understand that. I understand John 3:16, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever . . . ." I understand all of that. I understand the call to go to preach the gospel to every creature on the face of the earth, which means you have to have an honorable, legitimate call to salvation or you're illegitimate in that. I wrote a lot of this in the book on the Love of God, trying to cover a lot of these things. In the end, these things are very difficult for us to grasp, because they are things that are in the divine mind and we are not capable. Suffice it to say, I've always been content to fellowship with those who would take an unlimited view, and those who would take a limited view, because in the end, as long as you believe that people who are putting their faith in Christ go to heaven and those who don't go to hell, then you are orthodox--and that's the issue. But it is the nature of seminary; it's the nature of grappling day in and day out, hour in and hour out, as I do constantly in my life, with these kinds of issues, and reading widely on these things, to sort of pick and chose where you feel the weight of evidence, and it is usually related to how much you respect the "scholar of choice" or the "author of choice" and that's fine. That's all about establishing trust and confidence in those that God has given to us as teachers. The very fact that we are still discussing this issue is pretty good indication that it is not crystal clear, so that we could all rally around it, such as we are able to rally around some things in Scripture, for which there is really little discussion, because they are so explicit. But anytime you are crawling into the mind of infinite God and trying to sort out those matters, you have to stand with a bit of humility and a sort of a soft dogmatism, and I'm happy to [be] softly dogmatic on this point, understanding as best I can what the Word of God has to say. I have such a strong view of the atonement that I would have to believe that if Jesus, on the cross, actually paid the penalty for the sins of somebody, then they wouldn't go to hell, because that would be double-jeopardy. So there is that issue, theologically, to deal with, and I know how those passages are dealt with as well. But I think in the end, we want to maintain some humility. It seems like the younger you are, the harder you hold to these views, and as you grow in your understanding of Scripture, you are more comfortable with allowing yourself to leave the real hard questions to the Lord. As I say, what matters in the end is who believes, and who doesn't believe. Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by: Tony Capoccia |
7/7/2007
Copyright ⓒ 2006 [OldSchoolBaptist.org LTD]. All rights reserved