Irving Kristol, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by G. W. Bush in 2002, once said, “When we lack the will to see things as they really are there is nothing more mysterious than the obvious.”
We are affirming what great men before us have believed. Men like:
Theodore Beza
Samuel Rutherford
John Owen
Thomas Watson
John Gill
Abraham Kuyper
Matthew Henry
Thomas Boston
George Whitefield
Jonathan Edwards
Charles Hadden Spurgeon
Charles Hodge
Arthur W. Pink
Cornelius Van Til
William G. T. Shedd
Robert Lewis Dabney
B. B. Warfield
J. Gresham Machen
John Murray
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Loraine Boettner
J. I. Packer
R. C. Sproul
John MacArthur
Albert Mohler
John Piper
Jn
I have posted my sermon on John 3:16-18.**
** I am still shopping for a way to podcast my sermons. Many in our congregation wish to be able to download the sermons to their ipods in a high quality format. Any suggestions?
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Yes, MacArthur holds to limited atonement. But I think his response to the following show that he possesses some wisdom and humility about his view:
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 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.
Sled, noting the following excerpts from your Mac. quote:
I understand the debate and I certainly engage in it heartily,
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.
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.
We at Fide-O hold identical views and attitudes as John MacArthur on this issue. I wish the same was said of the BHT crowd. The mockery, the mischaracterizations, the name calling, all of that childish stuff is unbecoming of a site that claims the name of Christian. In fact, many times MacArthur’s name is being dragged through the mud over there. But as MacArthur said we believe in our Reformed doctrine and “heartily” engage in debating and discussing it. We believe in election and “L” but preach the Cross to all, trusting God to save whom He wills. Many Arminians have found themselves in friendly conversations here at Fide-O, and though we disagree, they appreciate our fairness and honesty.
And it is no secret that I think that MacArthur is one of the greatest pastor-of-pastors in history. His tape and book ministry has profited the church more than we will ever know this side of heaven. And his wisdom is priceless… and I add it to the wisdom I gain from Spurgeon, Pink, Owen, Baxter, Sproul, Edwards, Whitfield, Calvin, etc.
I think, in reading MacArthur’s words, the main point i come away with is that it possible to become extremely dogmatic about theological issues where it is better to be “softly dogmatic.”
For example, he states:
“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.”
Jason,
I just did a web search over at Boar’s Head…………it did not support your assertion In fact, many times MacArthur’s name is being dragged through the mud over there. Please show the information you have that supports this assertion.
Look, over the past week……..your debate isn’t even about Calvinism. You have an axe to grind with Spencer and the Boar’s Head apostates.
It IS possible to discuss the issue of Calvinism without dragging personalities into it.
Count me as one who is tired of MacArthur and Spurgeon being used as proof for every assertion made. Some might even make a conclusion that those who do so are guilty of what the Corinthians were……….a sectarian spirit.
I have one question, brother. Are the folks over at Boar’s Head Christians? Is Spencer a follower of Jesus? If so, how do you square all the banter? I guess I just don’t get it. For me, I can’t square this with how I am supposed to treat my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have never questioned, one time, the sincerity, or the Christianity of those at Fide-o. I can disagree vehemently with you all, yet love and respect you. This is not some sappy, touchy feely, love you bro stuff. It is the kind of love that is evident over at Mere Comments, a place where Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox, can meet on common ground, not ignoring the differences, but with a common love for Jesus, they converse with one another.
Sincerely,
Bruce Gerencser
Sled, of all that MacArthur said, it was that one statement that you highlighted that I found to be the one that I have not experienced. Of course all three of us (you, me, and John) only have antedotal evidence to support our statements about ages vs.dogmatism but still I thought I would explain since you mentioned it. For I have noticed that in my life the older men are much more firm in their views. I have been a Christian for twenty-five years, and I know that my views have slightly changed over the years as I became a better student of God’s Word. But the older I get the more firm my views become. And I know from pastoring, that the older an Arminian man is the less likely I can teach him Calvinism. In fact, speaking of the BHT, I noticed that Michael Spencer has been speaking derogatorily again of “young” theologians. Again, I think that is just Spencer being condescending. I have seen him do that several times in comments on various sites, including a man that I know personally who is as old as dirt (and I want mention his name because I know he reads Fide-O
).
Oh, and by the way, Bruce are you new to reading the BHT? Please don’t question Michael’s salvation; I have not. But concerning his writings, we have every right to critique, disagree, and so forth. In fact, Michael would agree.
Bruce if you read the quote that Sled Dog pasted from Dr. MacArthur you will actually see where my dividing line is.
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 THIER FAITH IN CHRIST
In fact Jason and I talked about this very thing today in my office. Where is the dividing line? Well it begins for me with justification by faith. I found it interesting that you equated love for Christ with common ground. Niether the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church teach justification by faith. Oh, sure they pay it lip service, but they do not mean the same as the Protestant view. In case you didn’t know that is why we Protested. I believe the term was Sola Fide. So exactly what common ground are the Protestants and Catholics going to meet on?
Jason,
When you find the solution for your podcasting – please post it to assist the rest of us who are struggling with this whole transistion from tapes to IPods.
Thanks!
Trying to connect the dots here…I just think Michael Spencer’s critique of your message was in line with what MacArthur says in his response when asked about limited atonement. John is not saying that we ought to ignore doctrine, but there are some doctrinal teachings that we ought to be more “softly dogmatic” about. Is MacArthur mocking the gospel when he says this?
Sled, thank you for your comments. But you seem to have a blind dedication to Spencer, especially when you say that his critique is in line with MacArthur’s. First of all, that is an impossiblility because the two do not believe that same, and secondly, you have twisted MacArthur’s quote into something entirely different than what he said. In fact, to be more accurate our discussion about “what MacArthur believes” you should actually read his commentary on the Gospel of John. It has just been published. Dr. MacArthur’s interpretation of John 3:16 was identical to mine, so to say that he and Michael are on the same page is just fictional wishes from BHT groupies.
But again, thanks for your comments.
Well, then MacArthur has changed his view, which is his perogative. I can only go off the things he says that are on my bookshelf.
My goal is not to defend Michael Spencer. In fact, I had no intention of bringing up his name, but you kept making reference to him. Hey, he’s a man…he can carry his own water. I feel no obligation to do it for him. I ask my questions because I want to know the answers for myself.
Personally, I agree with what MacArthur used to believe.
Sled, thank you again for your dialogue. But just to be clear, take a closer look at the Mac quote that you gave and you will discover that John has always believed in “L”, he just didn’t like the term because he believed it did not accurately portray the biblical doctrine. That is vastly different from trying to say that John once did not believe in this doctrine.
Just wanting to be sure we don’t mischaracterize John MacArthur! Too many have done that to this good man. And I am glad that you are seeking the answers for yourself. I hope that you have read these posts and comments with an open mind. Notice which side of the argument has biblical support and theological coherence and which arguments do not. Also, please take note of the spirit of humility in which these doctrines have been defended. Further, notice the evangelistic purpose for which this doctrine is asserted.
My continued references to Spurgeon, though ridiculed by some at the BHT, is an effort to give a historical illustration that Calvinism is very evangelistic, Biblical, and practical theologically and ministerially. Of course many other illustration could be referenced, but Spurgeon is so well known and easily researched by newcomers.
This whole brouhaha started with your message about the use of the word “world” in John 3:16. The Imonk disagreed with your exegisis of that word. In essence, I believe, he took a “sufficient for all, effective for the elect” stance (which is my view as well). When I read the postings here, I get the feel that the Imonk is made out to be a raving Arminian or Universalist, when, based upon what he’s written, I don’t find that to be the case.
Oh, yeah…I never ever said that John MacArther did not believe in limited atonement (for the record). The fact that you came to that conclusion causes me to believe that the real source of disagreement has not yet been addressed.
Sled,you seem to be agitated by the facts. I know that trying to defend the imonk can be a difficult task. But since you seem to have missed the original mockery of Spencer towards my sermon and theologians whom I agree with let me just quote him.
Like so much popular-level reformed theology on the web, this is an exercise in a text removed from a context, subjected to the grid of theological presuppositions, tortured through logical gymnastics and finally turned around on its ear to say that the locus (sic) of salvation is a divine decree rather than the incarnation. Nothing impresses me less than someone who glories in the limitation of the work of Christ. A universalist understands Jesus far better than someone who splits humanity into people God loves effectually and savingly in Jesus, and people God is gracious to but excludes from his saving intentions in Christ.
No one believes the cross is for believers more than I do. But this entire business of redefining world to mean something mysteriously less than every person seems asinine. At what point does this make sense: “God may or may not love you savingly in Jesus. I just really don’t know.” Coming to the point of saying, “Believers- whom God loves- were once in the world,” is stranger than strange.
So as you can see this was not just a disagreement. I disagree with brothers now and then, but I do not suggest that they are “torturing” the text through “logical gymnastics”. Further, Michael claimed that I “gloried in the limitation of the work of Christ.” That is a divisive mischaracterization of my sermon and my character.
Michael continues by asserting “A universalist understands Jesus far better than” than a Calvinist. Really? Do you defend that statement, Sled?
Further, within this original comment he characterizes my sermon as “strange” and my theology which the majority of reformed theologians agree with as “asinine.”
Now, I remind you. Michael made these comments after going to sermonaudio (from a link on Fide-O that was about podcasting services) and listening to my sermon. No one asked his opinion. I never asked for his critique, nor do I mine people critiquing me as some at the BHT have claimed. I simply pointed out the type of attitude and disrepectful antics Spencer used in his critique.
So, Sled, I hate to keep correcting your assertions, but I do appreciate your study of this important doctrine.
Sled, when you said MacArthur changed his view I assumed you meant that he hasn’t always beleived in Limited Atonement.
That is where my conclusion landed. So if you didn’t mean that then what did you mean?
Based on what Jason reported, he changed his view on the usage of “world” in John 3:16. He apparantly now believes “world” refers to the elect rather than humanity.
In THE LOVE OF GOD, he over and over states that the world of John 3:16 speaks of humanity, not just the elect. To quote: “John 3:16 demands to be interpreted as speaking of God’s love to sinful mankind in general.”
He wrote that book in response to actions and attitudes of some Calvinists who were obsessed about limited atonement. I remember that time well (mid-90′s), as a group of these folks invaded a church where I was a youth pastor (a reformed church no less). They had axes to grind and chips on their shoulders. And the question that they went around asking people was “Do you think God loves everybody?” If you said “yes”, you were a heretic. Their systematic theology, in my opinion, had become an idol.
In the article I posted above he wrote: “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.
So, there you go…
I am extremely reluctant to attempt to post on this site, but on the outside chance that this comment will be posted, I want to clarify several things.
1) Every word you have cited we in reference to THE DOCTRINE OF LIMITED ATONEMENT and not your sermon. My poor use of the word “this” was ambiguous, and I apologize that it left the impression I was ridiculing you. I was not. I was expressing my feelings about the doctrine of LA in general, wherever it is defended by Calvinists, particularly as I have read it in Pink.
I wrote this clarification to you by means of a reply to a letter Scott sent me. I assume you read my explanation and simply reject it, which is your right to do, but I would like readers of your blog to understand that I was NEVER MOCKING YOU, but was expressing my opinion of the Doctrine of LA within Calvinism.
2) I am not a Universalist. Anyone reading my writing for the past five years would find the suggestion that I am incredible.
3) I am not an Arminian. I have stated that I am a Reformation Christian and I affirm any number of reformation-friendly confessions. I am no more an Arminian than Richard Baxter or Bruce Ware.
4) I am not writing “derogatory” posts about young theologians. I am writing four posts to young theologians based on three letters I have received from them. Far from being “derogatory,” I am being encouraging.
5) I have never “dragged” Dr. Macarthur through “the mud.” While I disagree with him on the subject of assurance, and on the subject of faith/works, I respect him immensely and have said so many times.
6) I never implied agreement or disagreement with Dr. Mac in the quote I posted from him on Internet Monk. I simply found it ironic that his treatment of the term “kosmos” was completely different from that of Pink, etc.
7) I have never engaged in an email campaign regarding this web site. I have written two letters: One in reply to Scott. One to Mr. Fields asking him to clarify what appeared to be a morals charge.
Sled, all Calvinist would agree that the gospel offer is universal. Romans chapter one even expands this thought with God’s general revelation being universal. And we both know that neither secure salvation for anyone. Thus we shall preach to the masses of humanity and let the Spirit effectually draw the elect to the Father.
By the way, in MacArthur’s new John 1-11 Commentary he explains his interpretation of John 3:16 as follows (paraphrasing): “world” in Jn. 3:16 is a nonspecific term for humanity in a general sense. “World” in verse 17 proves that “world” in verse 16 does not mean everyone who has ever lived, since all will not be saved.
Michael, thank you for your comments, apology, and clarifications. I am unconvinced of your attitude towards John MacArthur but will watch to see if your comments hold true. I am not saying you are lying, but I just have seen too much in the past at the BHT to affirm your comments. I find no fault in criticizing theologians, especially when their work is published. I have even disagreed with MacArthur on some things here at Fide-O. But I do find that many of the post at the BHT are riddled with pejorative language. I know that I do not need to list examples. But in our efforts to continue a healthy debate of vital doctrinal issues back and forth between our blogs, I simply ask you to rein in such dyslogism. I don’t mind the picking on our blog name, or parodies like TR, and other such things that keeps the blogosphere from being boring. I definitely don’t mind strong disagreement or debate. But lets both try in the future to abstain from the condescension and patronizing. Fair enough?
Again, thanks to both of you guys for your comments and interest in this discussion.