When Stephen delivered his ear and heart piercing sermon in Acts 7 the Jews blocked their ears, gnashed their teeth, attacked him like a pack of wolves and stoned him to death. In our advanced technological age the religious hierarchies (such as the Emergent and Calvinist fraternity) no longer block their ears. They block you from their heavenly websites and blogs.. Above is a JPEG snippet of a video uploaded by a guy who calls himself KeithTruth. Now that’s a good pseudonym for a person who rejects biblical truth. How dare I suggest such an unloving thing? Well, decide for yourself when you read the rest of my comment.
Like any decent and respectable person whose freedom and free-will is honourably respected on YouTube I exercised my “internet constitutional” right and commented on a video that was uploaded by a guy who calls himself KeithTruth. He responded to my comment but when I wrote something in response to his response the following message in red appeared on my screen “You have been blocked by the owner of this video.” It reminded me of the days in Nazi Germany when freedom loving people were incarcerated and even killed when they criticized Hitler . . . or was it in the time of Calvin? Anyway, whether Hitler or Calvin, both of them had their opponents murdered whenever they were criticized. It also reminded me of my humiliating experience I had with a “Christian” forum called Bible Database that often dumped me in their cooler because I did not agree with their Calvinist buddies. By the way, they took much pleasure in writing about the pleasures of drinking beer and even quoted the 33rd degree Freemason, Benjamin Franklin, who said: “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Guess what? They were never sent to the cooler.
As you can see from my comment above I merely echoed what John MacArthur has said in the past so many times. He believes that Jesus loves everyone but did not die on the cross for everyone. KeithTruth makes no bones about the fact that he is in total agreement with John MacArthur when he says “And if Jesus died for everyone and substituted himself taking their sins then everyone would have their sins paid for and universalism would be true.” This is the kind of nonsense you get when you believe that Jesus’ death on the cross automatically saves the elect only without them having to put your faith in Him and his finished work on the cross prior to their regeneration and IN ORDER to be saved. In fact this kind of nonsense completely rules out and nullifies crucial biblical truths such as 1 Corinthians 1:18: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”
Unbelieving reprobates (as Calvinists refer to them) no longer need to pooh-pooh the cross as sheer foolishness in order to earn their eternal damnation. Why would they want to do that when the cross and Jesus’ atoning work were never intended for them in the first place? Is the cross to them foolishness because they are reprobates and consequently and ultimately perish or do they perish because the cross is to them foolishness? Some of you may ask: So what’s the difference? The difference is this: In the first instance God is the one who sovereignly reprobates the non-elect causing them to pooh-pooh Jesus Christ’s cross as foolishness. They regard the cross as foolishness because of what they are – irretrievably damned and lost reprobates. In the second instance foolhardy unbelievers reprobate themselves because they willingly and deliberately pooh-pooh the cross of God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. They forfeit their salvation because of their refusal to believe in the redemptive power of the cross of Jesus Christ. Of course, Calvinists must of necessity opt for the first instance because they believe that God has predestined and reprobated the non-elect long before the foundation of the world. Jesus said the following about the mission of his Holy Spirit: “
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; (John 16:7-9).
The sin that damns men, women and children to hell is unbelief and not because they were not predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the world. The cross to them is sheer foolishness. But how can the reprobate believe on Him and his atoning work on the cross when He did not die for them? That’s impossible. How can the Holy Spirit convict the reprobate of their sin of unbelief when Christ did not die for them? Once again, that’s impossible. Imagine the Holy Spirit convicting the reprobate by saying to them: “You are hopelessly lost because of your sin of unbelief but don’t let that bother you because even if you were able to believe it would not have benefited you in anyway because Jesus Christ did not die for you on the cross.”
Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, according to the Levitical sacrificial system in the OT, was first and foremost a sin-offering. The question we should ask is whether the Levitical sin-offering in the OT was sacrificed for the sins of the entire nation of Israel or just for a few chosen ones? If the sin-offering was not intended for a select few only but for the entire nation of Israel it would be expedient to agree with KeithTruth that a kind of national universalism would have to be true. Allow me to change his quoted statement above slightly and apply it to the sin-offering of the Old Testament: ““And if the sin-offering was for the entire nation of Israel and a substitution for everyone’s sins everyone would have their sins paid for and universalism (for Israel) would have been true.” Was the sin-offering a sacrifice for the entire nation of Israel or only a select few? Bear in mind that the entire nation of Israel was God’s chosen people and as such the sin-offering was indeed for the entire nation. Was every single Israelite saved, regardless of the fact that he/she was an elect?
On the annual Day of atonement, the High Priest had to slaughter an animal and apply its blood to himself for the atonement of his own sins, and only then was he allowed to offer sacrifices for the entire nation and to enter the most holy of holies in the tabernacle where he applied it’s blood on the mercy seat for the entire nation of Israel . Was Jesus Christ’s offering of his own blood which was a more excellent sacrifice than the sin-offering in Leviticus, not efficacious to make atonement for the entire human race whilst the shadow thereof (the sin-offering in the OT) had sufficient efficacy to make atonement for the entire nation of Israel? If Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was the anti-type of the offerings in Leviticus which had the efficacy to make atonement for the entire nation of Israel, then Christ’s sacrifice most certainly had the efficacy to make atonement for the entire human race. But why are most people for whom Christ made atonement on the cross not saved? – for the same reason why most of the Israelites were not allowed to enter the Promised Land.
Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. (Hebrews 4:1-3).
God had already established a rest as far back as creation itself but most of the Israelites forfeited it because of their unbelief. Faith in God and his promises was therefore a prerequisite to enjoy God’s rest which He established from the foundation of the earth and NOT because most of them were predestined unto damnation before the foundation of the world.
John MacArthur also believes that it is your on-going performance (commonly known in Calvinism as “Perseverance of the Saints” which constitutes the “P” in the acronym TULIP) that determines the genuineness of your salvation.
If God loves only the elect to the extent that He had his only begotten Son crucified on a cross for them only, it is obvious that ONLY the elect cannot possibly lose their salvation and shall endure, continue and persevere in the faith to the very end of their lives here on earth. Neither can the reprobate for whom Christ did not die, according to John MacArthur, lose their damnation simply because God has predestined them unto eternal damnation even before the foundation of the earth and ARE therefore irretrievably lost. No salvation equals no life changing experience and leads to eternal damnation.
To put it in a nutshell: The elect cannot possibly lose their salvation and so too the non-elect cannot possibly lose or forfeit their damnation. Having made this distinction between the elect and the non-elect perfectly clear once again, it also becomes perfectly clear that John MacArthur’s statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” is one of the most insidious oxymorons imaginable. Of whom is he speaking – the elect or the non elect?
If MacArthur, in his his entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned,” refers to the elect it would mean that they are prone to either a life of change or no change which means they can either retain or lose their salvation. Can the elect lose their salvation? Absolutely not! If that were possible, the doctrine of predestination unto salvation before the foundation of the earth would have been good only for the garbage dump and God’s glory and honour would have been dealt a deathblow. IMPOSSIBLE! The only conclusion we can draw from this is that the entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” cannot possibly be applied to the elect. Not even the staunchest Calvinist is able to say “The elect who change are saved” because such a statement implies an opposite which is “The elect who do not change are damned.” IMPOSSIBLE? IMPOSSIBLE!
If the elect are unreservedly and unconditionally saved, which is essential for God’s glory, then it is essentially true that the statement “The elect who change are saved” is completely superfluous. What is the sense in declaring that “the elect who change are saved” when every single elect person shall be changed because they have been predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the earth? If MacArthur’s statement ““Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” could be applied to the elect, the clause in Chapter 3 “Of God’s Eternal Decree” i.e. “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;” would have to be erased from the Westminster Confession of Faith for all eternity. If God unchangeably ordained the salvation of every elect person before the foundation of the world, it is fruitless to argue that they are prone or susceptible to no change in their lives. In other word: THEY MUST CHANGE AND THEY WILL CHANGE whether they like it or not. Ah, but if they don’t change it is the clearest sign and proof that the “elect” are not truly the elect. They are the reprobate when no change is evident in their lives. This brings us to the next part of John Mac Arthur’s Calvinistic oxymoron.
Can MacArthur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” be applied to the non-elect or the reprobate? The possibility of change in a reprobate’s life is zero, zilch, nada which of course leaves them prone or susceptible to one thing only and that is a life of unchangeable corruption, total depravity, debauchery, extreme sinfulness and filth. Once again, it is necessary to use the word IMPOSSIBLE when we examine John MacArtrhur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” in the light of the reprobate. If it were possible to apply the first part of MacArthur’s statement “Those who change are saved” to the reprobate it would mean that they too can be saved. Is that possible? Of course not because they have been chosen of God before the foundation of the earth to be dammed eternally. They have no hope of ever being changed because if there had been the slightest possibility for them to change they would have instantly been changed into the elect because ONLY the elect are saved and changed. Can the second part of his statement be applied to the reprobate? Indeed, it is the only part of his statement that can be applied to the reprobate, just as much as the first part of his statement can only be applied to the elect.
If John MacArthur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” cannot be applied neither to the elect nor to the reprobate, what’s the point in making such a statement? It means nothing. At best he could say “The elect are changed because they are irretrievably and irrevocably saved” or “The elect are saved because they are irretrievably and irrevocably changeable” and “The reprobate are not changed because they are irretrievably and irrevocably lost” or “The reprobate are lost because they are irretrievably and irrevocably unchangeable.” Calvinism is a strange doctrine; very strange and weird indeed. Not even a great Calvinist like John MacArthur knows how to articulate “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” in terms of the elect and the reprobate. Simply said: he can’t because it does not apply to either one.
If Jesus Christ did not die on the cross for all people then some of them (the reprobate) cannot possibly be saved and changed. Now you tell me with all honesty: Can we apply John MacArthur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned,” to the reprobate? If Jesus Christ died only for the elect and they are all saved and changed because if they hadn’t been saved and changed Jesus would have been a failure, can we apply John MacArthur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” to the elect? Having proved to you that his statement cannot be applied to neither the one nor the other, we must of necessity ask ourselves: Of whom is John MacArthur speaking when he makes such a statement?
