Grace in Mormonism, and Other Topics

I came across the above video in which many views were expressed by the panellists on various topics which are worth commenting on. The first question asked (as phrased by the host) was regarding the doctrine of grace as follows:

“‘Would you give an overview of the doctrines of grace?’ That is the phrase that is used, ‘the doctrines of grace’. What doctrines does that phrase refer to, and what do they mean?”

After comments by RC Sproul, followed by exchanges regarding the Catholic doctrine, at 4:20 minutes into the video John MacArthur interjects the following:

“Just to comment on that, I have been in correspondence with essentially​ the gatekeepers​ of Mormon theology at BYU, in particular Dr. Robert Millet who is appointed by the Apostles, the Mormon Apostles, to articulate and propagate the Mormon faith. And their latest effort, and his latest letter to me which I think I received a few weeks ago … is a plea for me to understand that they believe in salvation by grace. They believe that it is all of grace, and that there wouldn’t be any salvation if God didn’t graciously provide that.

Host: “That sounds awfully good!”

“It sounds very good. You know, what they are trying to do of course is to mainstream themselves, and get the Evangelical … I should say ignorant consensus to just embrace this. As I begin to press it a little more—of course they have a different God, a unitarian God; they have a different Christ, a created creature. And when you get down to salvation by grace, I wrote back a rather extensive letter, I got back another plea to please understand this, a big thick paper. When all is said and done, what they are saying is, God is gracious to let us work our way to heaven, he didn’t have to do that. But it is a huge trapdoor for many people who won’t go beyond that. So sola gratia, back to the reason why all the ‘solas’ are there, sola scriptura, nothing but the scripture etc., is crucial.”

I am not privy to his correspondence with Dr. Millet, so I can’t comment on that. But I can inform him that the doctrine of grace, as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the biblical one, which is not the same as the Evangelical/Calvinistic one that he adheres to. In the Bible grace is not unmerited. Peter says that God “resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5). So that is at least one prerequisite​ for receiving grace―being humble. But it is not the only one. Another requirement is obedience:

Ephesians​ 5:

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

Colossians 3:

5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

You can’t have wrath and grace at the same time. It is either one or the other. If you are experiencing the wrath of God, then you can’t be experiencing his grace at the same time. If wrath comes upon the “children of disobedience,” it follows that the grace comes upon the children of obedience. So while it is true that salvation is of grace, and that without the grace of God no one could be saved; grace itself is not dispensed unconditionally, or without merit. To say that we are saved by grace, and that without the grace of God no one could be saved, does not translate​ into saying that God dispenses his grace to mankind unconditionally,​ or without any merit. There is no logical connection between the two statements. And this does not mean that we “save ourselves,” or are “saved by our own works” either. We are save by God when we do what he says. God “resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble,” says Peter. The fact that we are “saved by grace” does not mean that God dispenses that grace to mankind arbitrarily or unconditionally​. Humility, repentance, and obedience are the prerequisites. That is what the Bible teaches.

If the Evangelical doctrine of grace were true, either everyone should be saved unconditionally (universal salvation), which we know is not biblical; or else God saves and damns people by an arbitrary decision without regard to any degree of their personal righteousness, worthiness, repentance, obedience, virtue, or anything else, which we know is also unbiblical. Throughout the Bible we are told that God condemns the wicked and saves the righteous. The doctrine of grace of the LDS Church, as taught in the Book of Mormon, is the biblical one, and leads to neither of those conclusions. This is how the Book of Mormon teaches the doctrine of grace:

2 Nephi 2:

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.
6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
9 Wherefore he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.
•  •  •
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

2 Nephi 10:

23 Therefore cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.
24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.

2 Nephi 25:

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

“After all we can do” means in spite of all we can do. In other words, there is nothing we can do by our own strength, or virtue, or wisdom, or righteousness etc. that can save us―aside from the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. That is the doctrine of grace of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the biblical one. It doesn’t mean that we don’t need to repent or keep the commandments of God to be saved.

In the theology of Latter-day Saints, the Atonement of Jesus Christ had two major consequences​ for man. Firstly, it redeems all of mankind unconditionally ​from the effects ​of the Fall. That is universal and applies to all men, the wicked as well as the righteous. It means that all men will be resurrected, and all will be brought back to the presence of God to be judged. No one will be condemned or punished because of the Fall of Adam. That is taken care of unconditionally by the Atonement.

The Fall brought about two kinds of deaths on mankind: a physical death as well as a spiritual death (meaning that they are cut off from the presence of God). The Atonement unconditionally redeems all of mankind from both these two kinds of death―from physical death by the resurrection; and from spiritual death by bringing them back to the presence of God to be judged.

Secondly, the Atonement also redeems all of mankind from their own personal or individual sins on conditions of faith and repentance in this life. These then will be given a free pass on judgement day; whereas ​those who have not believed nor repented will then experience a second death which is a spiritual death, not a physical death; from which they can no longer be redeemed, because the opportunity of “faith and repentance” no longer exists for them. That window of opportunity is only open during the period between birth and resurrection. After that there is no more opportunity for faith, repentance, or redemption. It is the Atonement that sets men free, and enables them to choose the way of life and salvation, or the way of death and damnation in this life. See Revelation 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8; Jacob 3:11; Alma 11:40–45; 12:12–35; 13:27–30; 40:22–26; 42:22–27; Helaman 14:15–19.

The scriptures also speak of more than one resurrection. The redeemed come forth in the first resurrection; the rest in the second. Calvinism is not the gospel that Jesus taught. Our freedom and ability to make a choice between salvation or damnation comes because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ; and we are rewarded accordingly.

As far as his remarks about the LDS doctrine of the Deity is concerned, he is wrong about that too. Firstly, God in the theology of Latter-day Saints is not “unitarian”. I didn’t know what that was; I had to look it up. Secondly, Jesus Christ in the theology of Latter-day Saints is not a “created creature”. The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus Christ is eternal, and eternally God. Here are some quotes:

Book of Mormon Title page:

… And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.

2 Nephi 26:

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Mosiah 16:

15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

It is the Bible in fact that describes Jesus as a created being:

Colossians 1:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his eternal nature is far more clearly taught in the Book of Mormon than it is in the Bible.

Continuing on with the rest of the question and answer session, at around 16:00 minutes into the video RC Sproul starts discussing the limited versus the unlimited nature Atonement as follows:

“I have had many conversations with people who identify themselves as 4-point Calvinists, and the one on which they demure of course is ‘definite atonement,’ ‘particular redemption,’ or what we call ‘limited atonement;’ which of course is the easiest one to affirm. But every time I hear somebody say that, I make the assumption that if they really believe the other four, they just don’t understand this doctrine, and so let’s take some time to unpack it. And if I ask them what they really believe about God’s intent in the cross; did God intend from all eternity to save every person in the world? I mean it’s rare … every person will say to me they don’t believe that. God knew from all eternity that not everybody was going to be saved, and he didn’t sovereignly decree that everyone will be saved. If he did, everybody would be saved. And so did Jesus fail on the cross to fulfill the task that the father had given him? Well no, we wouldn’t want to say that, well then how can you … they just didn’understand the doctrine. …”

This of course is the argument that RC Sproul always brings in support of his doctrine of limited atonement, apparently oblivious to how untenable and logically deficient it is. His argument amounts to saying that the Atonement must be limited, otherwise salvation must be universal! That is simply not a valid logical deduction. God desires everyone to be saved, and made it possible for everyone to be saved by providing everyone the opportunity to be saved by atoning for the sins of all mankind. If some are not saved, that is their choice, not God’s. Inherent in the entire biblical narrative, both the Old and New Testaments, is man’s ability to make a choice―and be held accountable for it. “​Choose​ ​you​ ​this​ ​day​ ​whom​ ​ye​ ​will​ ​serve,” said Joshua to all Israel (Josh.​ ​24:15). And this has been the recurring theme throughout the Old and New Testaments:

2 Peter 2:

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

This is the constant theme running throughout the Old and New Testaments, including the express teachings of Jesus himself in the Gospels. Here is one example:

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The “Reformed” doctrine of predestination goes against everything that is taught in the Bible from start to finish. If man is not free to choose good and evil, why tell him to choose good and reject evil on every page (or near enough)―and reward him accordingly? Limited atonement means that God didn’t want everyone to be saved, which contradicts what is taught in the Bible, as already explained in this post.

The biblical references are unmistakable. My aim here is to demonstrate the logical absurdity of the assumption frequently made by RC Sproul that an unlimited atonement necessitates a universal salvation. His argument is that if God has atoned for for everyone’s sins, then everyone should be saved. Where is the logical necessity of that? I don’t see one. The biblical assumption is that God has made it possible for everyone to be saved, which means that he has atoned for everyone’s sins. Whether they are saved or not is entirely their choice. God has not predestined anybody to be saved or to be damned. The fact that he knows in advance who will be and who will not, does not mean that he has predestined them to.

Predestination is a heresy. Its aim is to absolve mankind of the moral responsibility to do good and refrain from evil, as commanded by the Lord. The very purpose of scripture from the beginning to the end is to enjoin mankind to choose good and abstain from evil. “Let us not be weary in well doing,” says Paul in Galatians 6; and “do good,” says Jesus, repeatedly in the four Gospels. The whole of the Sermon on the Mount is centered on doing good. The whole of Jesus’ ministry is centered on doing good. The whole of the Bible, from start to finish, from Genesis to Revelation, is centered on doing good―and abstaining from evil. “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” is the constant refrain of Jesus in the New Testament, and of every prophet in the Old Testament. Predestination, “faith alone,” TULIP, and Calvinism is the doctrine of the devil. It is Satanic. It is an abomination in the sight of God. It is an evil heresy intended to blunt the repeated injunction in the Holy Writ to do good and eschew evil.

Continuing with the rest of the panel discussion, however, at around 18:00 minutes into the video the following question was asked about the “doctrine of God’s foreknowledge,” as put by the host:

“Is there a difference between foreordained and foreknown? So I guess in a general sense explain what that means, God’s foreknowledge, and is there a difference between those two terms?”

To this John MacArthur gives the following reply:

“I don’t think there is any difference. I think you can come at that from the text standpoint foreknowledge is a predetermination to establish a relationship with; you have a statement in Amos, ‘Israel only have I known’. You have John 10, ‘my sheep hear my voice and I know them’. Cain ‘knew his wife’ and she bore a child. Mary was with child and Joseph had not ‘known her’. We even talk about that kind of knowledge; we use the phrase ‘carnal knowledge’ or whatever. We understand that there is a metaphoric use of the word ‘know’ that speaks of intimacy, and I think that is the way that it is intended. It is a predetermined relationship with. It is essentially the same as to ‘predestine’ or to ‘predetermine’ or to ‘preordain’ as opposed to God ‘looking down’ as you have often heard some ‘corridor’ and ‘seeing’ what is going to happen, and based upon the knowledge that comes to him through some anticipated empirical or reality some virtual reality, he then reacts and says based upon what I know is going to happen, this is what I am going to do. I think it is not that at all. That would undo the entire reality of God as sovereign. That would make man completely sovereign, and capable of doing whatever he wants to do which we have already talked about flies in the face of moral capability. So foreknowledge is simply God’s predetermination to establish a relationship with a person as I see it the way it is used.”

That is a pretty ignorant reply. It is a denial of the omniscience of God. Omniscience is pretty standard Christian theology. God knows everything, including everything that will happen in the future. Even RC Sproul (the inventor of the “corridors of time!”) seems to have been embarrassed by that reply, and tries to correct it in the same conversation.

As far as the “corridors of time” is concerned (LOL!), there is no such thing. God knows everything, period. “All is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men” (Alma 40:8). God knows the end from the beginning. To God, the whole of the past, present and future is one great ever-present now. There is no “looking through the corridors of time”.

At 29:09 minutes into the video RC Sproul makes the following comments regarding the Arminian view of salvation. I am not an Arminian; but LDS theology is more sympathetic to Arminianism than it is to Calvinism; so I am going to come to the defense of the Arminian in the following hypothetical exchange. This is what he says:

“In a non-theological, simple, personal way, when I talk to my [Arminian] friends I say to them, You are a Christian? Yes! You have friends and relatives that aren’t Christians, right? And I say, Are you a Christian, and your friend isn’t, because you are better than that person? Now I have never had an Arminian look me into the eye and say, Well yeah, that is why I am a Christian, because I am better.”

That is because he is asking the wrong question. Jesus has addressed that issue in several places in the New Testament. First we have this:

Luke 17:

7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?

8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?

9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

I follow that dictum. After I have done all that God has required of me to do, I say I am an unprofitable servant. I don’t claim to be better than, or superior to anyone else. And there is no telling that my friend or neighbor who is rejecting the gospel today, might repent and accept it tomorrow, and become a more committed disciple than I am. That, however, does not mean that there is no merit in keeping God’s comments. The only thing it means is that I am not the one who is qualified to judge. I don’t sit in judgement on my own righteousness, or anyone else’s. That is reserved for God. Here are another set of scriptures that he has missed:

Matthew 10:

22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 24:

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mark 13:

13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

According to the teachings of Jesus, nobody is “saved” until they have “endured to the end”. “Instant salvation,” and “once saved always saved” are figments of the Evangelical and Calvinistic imagination. There isn’t any such thing. And since the “end” hasn’t come yet, there is no guarantee that either of us are “saved”. There is no telling that I may apostatize tomorrow and be damned; and my next-door neighbor, who is now rejecting the gospel, may accept it tomorrow, endure to the end, and be saved. Here is another scripture he may have missed:

Luke 14:

11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

I am not the judge of my own righteousness, nor of anyone else’s, nor required to be​. God is the​ judge of that. I do what God commands, and leave judgement up to him. But that does not mean that there is no merit or virtue in keeping God’s commandments​. Here is another:

Matthew 7:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: …

I am not required to sit in judgement on anyone’s righteousness, including my own. Judgement belongs to God. But that does not mean that I should not attempt to be righteous, or that my righteousness ​has no merit in the sight of God. RC Sproul then continues his hypothetical conversation with the Arminian as follows:

“I say are you a Christian and your buddy isn’t a Christian because you are smarter than they are? Well no! Because they know if they say Yes, I am going to say, Where did you get your intelligence from in the first place … And I say, Let me ask you this, Is there a right response to the gospel that God commands? Does God command all men to repent and embrace Christ? Yes! I said now your neighbour here has rejected that command, and has disobeyed God, has he done something wrong? He said Yes! I said, But you have done the right thing! So ultimately the reason why you are in the kingdom and that guy isn’t in the kingdom is because of your virtue, as distinguished from his vice! Well I don’t want to … I say I know you don’t want to say that. You would rather cut your tongue out before you say that, but that is what we say … is the inconsistency of Arminianism. This is what they have to say if they really believe in the final analysis that the thing that gets them in the kingdom is their right choice which the good thing to do, rather than the bad choice that the reprobate made. And I say you need to be saying the rest of your life, Thank God I said yes! Not thank me that I said yes.”

Wrong! That is not the conclusion it leads to. The right conclusion is the one I showed above. That statement contains too many false premises and false assumptions. The main mistake that he makes is that he assumes that the guy who has “believed” is already “saved,” and there is nothing that can happen to change that; and the guy who has not yet “believed” is already “damned,” and there is that can happen to change that—both of which are incorrect. The guy who has believed can still apostatize, fall away, and be damned; and the guy who has not yet believed can still believe, repent, and be saved. The biblical response to that is as follows:

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life [i.e. salvation]; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

I didn’t say that, Jesus did! When RC Sproul discusses the question of salvation being a “reward” in heaven, he tries to get round it by saying that once we get to heaven, the rewards we get in heaven is based on merit; but salvation itself is not based on merit. Salvation itself is only by unconditional grace. But that is not what John 5:28–29 teaches. According to this scripture (and many more, some of them already quoted), salvation itself is based on merit, not just the rewards we receive in heaven once we are saved. Calvinism numbs the mind and blinds the eyes to prevent them from seeing the truth that is plainly taught in the Bible.

At 31:05 minutes into the video the question is asked, “Could you comment on how we are to recognize a false teacher. What makes a false teacher a false teacher?”

To this John MacArthur gives the following reply:

“I have just been going through all of that: 2 Peter 2; Jude; 1, 2, 3 John; you know the essential tests they are all essentially doctrinal tests and you go back to the doctrines of grace of course, you go back to the further drivetrain of our faith, the Trinitarian God, an understanding of the doctrine of sin and helplessness of man, the Incarnation, the perfect life of Christ, substitutionary death, bodily resurrection, perfect understanding of the God-man, all man and all God at the same time, the incredible incarnation reality, salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, imputed righteousness. I think just the drivetrain of those doctrines of grace that we were talking about, are what mark the true teacher. And John points out repeatedly that they start with an assault on Christ, there is either an assault on the humanity of Christ, or on the deity of Christ, and Paul talks about if anybody preaches another gospel, which would include perhaps some aberration regarding Christ or some addition of works to grace. I think anybody who tampers with that is for certain a false prophet. I mean it would be categorically in the place of a damning lie. A hypocritical liar as Paul writing to Timothy calls them. A hypocritical liar, somebody who is espousing doctrines of demons, at that particular point. There are a lot of ways people can be false and hypothetical and driven by money, and pride, and power, and all of that; but the core of it is some aberration of the gospel, and the elements that are necessary for the gospel.”

What that amounts to saying is that a “true teacher” is somebody who preaches Calvinism, otherwise he is a false teacher! He has got that the wrong way round. Anybody who teaches Calvinism is unquestionably a false teacher. That is settled. No arguments over that one. If he is not preaching Calvinism, he may or may not be a false teacher depending on a number of other factors.

The criterion that Jesus laid down for determining a true teacher from a false one, however, was that we should judge them by their fruits (i.e. their works). See Matthew 7:15–23. Calvinism is the very antithesis of that. It discourages “good fruit” at the most fundamental level—theologically. It tells you that you don’t need to do any good to be saved; just “believe,” and you are done! The entire theology is built from ground up to discourage people from doing good and abstaining from evil. It is hard to imagine a more damnable, a more perfidious heresy that has ever been conceived.

At 58:22 minutes into the video John MacArthur says the following:

“I know there are errors in my theology, I am not under any illusions, I know that. I said that one time and somebody said, Why don’t you change them? And my response was that I just don’t know where they are. I know they are there, but I don’t know where they are. You show me where they are and I will change them! I mean that is not a problem.”

Well, he has come to the right place to find out! I have shown him many of his theological errors, let’s see if he will change them. But his errors are too fundamental for him to be able to easily change them. To change them, he would have to ditch Calvinism and “Reformed” theology altogether, flush TULIP down the toilet, and embrace the Book of Mormon. That is not going to be an easy thing for him to do. He is too​ committed to his abominable heresy to be able to easily give it up. The whole of “Reformed” theology is heretical. It is the doctrine of the devil. It is built on dishonesty, deception, hypocrisy and guile. It is rank heresy. It is the gospel of damnation rather than salvation. Avoid like a plague!

Sovereignty vs. Freedom—Part VII

This is my 7^th and final episode of posts commenting on John MacArthur’s lengthy sermon on God’s sovereignty and human freewill; and in case anyone has been wondering what makes me so smart, that I can trounce these guys at their own game, the answer is the Book of Mormon. I know something that they don’t. I have more word of the Lord than they do. They have been to college and to the seminary, and have theological degrees and PhDs, and have read thousands of books; but they don’t have what I have. What I have is of infinitely greater value than what they have. Watch the above video to find out more.

Sovereignty vs. Freedom—Part VI

And finally we come to Romans chapter 9. In this chapter Paul uses a lot of metaphor and figure of speech which lends itself to easy manipulation and misinterpretation by Evangelical and Reformed theologians. Chapter 9 begins as follows:

Romans 9:

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

In these verses Paul expresses sorrow and distress at the unbelief of his kinsman, the Jews. He wishes that he himself would be damned, if it could bring about the conversion of the Jews. But notice that at the same time in verse 4 he does not deny that the promises which were made to the Jews or Israelites (i.e. the literal descendants) were for real. The promises still apply—even though the dispensation of the gospel has been taken away (temporarily) from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles. Then he continues:

Romans 9:

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Here Paul engages in a metaphor. What he is basically saying is that the promises of God to Abraham concerning his seed were not exclusive to the literal descendants, but included the Gentiles who would be adopted into that lineage through faith; whereas those of the literal descendants who did not remain faithful would not be assured of the promise. John MacArthur, after going through a convoluted commentary on these verses, concludes it with these words:

“What does that mean? God never intended to save all Israel. Not all physical Israel, not all Jewish people who are Jewish by race are intended to be in the Kingdom. That’s exactly what he’s saying. No, not all Israel is spiritual Israel, nor are they all children because they’re Abraham’s descendants. Not everybody who came out of the loins of Abraham is going to be a child of God. God is selective.”

There are several problems with that commentary. Firstly, nobody ever said that every single literal descendant of Israel would be saved. Neither the Old Testament says that nor the New. So that is a non-statement. It doesn’t say anything that means anything to anybody. The Bible teaches that only the righteous are saved—be they Jews or Gentiles—and the wicked are condemned. That is the story of the house of Israel throughout the Old Testament. So what his point is in saying repeatedly that “God never intended to save all Israel” is anybody’s guess. I suspect that what he really means to say is that Israel as a nation will not be saved, or will not be restored to their original status, which is also false, as attested by Paul himself:

Romans 11:

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

By the “fulness of the Gentiles” (also called the “times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21:24), is meant the period of time when the Gentiles gain the ascendancy over the house of Israel. That period will eventually come to an end, and the house of Israel (the literal descendants) as a nation will regain the original ascendancy over the Gentile nations which it once had before.

But the most serious error that he makes is the last bit where he says, “God is selective,” by which he means that God is arbitrarily selective in whom he saves and whom he condemns. He arbitrarily determines who will be saved and who will be damned, without reference to any merit or demerit on their part. That is utterly false and an evil perversion of the gospel. It goes against the express teaching of scripture that God is “no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34–35). Nothing of the kind is suggested in the verses he is discussing.

To digress a little, when R.C. Sproul discusses the doctrine of election from the Arminian point of view, he keeps referring to it in terms of God “looking through the corridors of time”. God doesn’t “look through the corridors of time”. There is no “time” with God. God sees the whole of the past, present, and future as one great ever-present NOW, and elects them according to their righteousness as if it were NOW. I can turn that question around to R.C. Sproul. Here is the question: When it says in the scriptures that God is “no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11), but that “in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him” (Acts 10:35); does that mean that God does not know in advance who will “fear him and work righteousness,” and has to sit and wait to see what happens before deciding what to do next? Of course not! Did God know ahead of time that Cornelius would “fear God and work righteousness?” Of course he did! Was Cornelius “elected” accordingly, long before he was born? Of course he was! Was Cornelius predestined to “fear God and work righteousness”? Certainly not! Just because God knew ahead of time that that is what he would do (and elected him accordingly), it does not follow that he was predestined to. That is how the doctrine of election works. John MacArthur then continues his narrative as follows:

“He rejected Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, and brought blessing to and through Isaac.”

That is not quite true either. Ishmael was not “rejected”. He also received great promises and blessings (Gen. 17:20). But the greater blessings were reserved for Isaac. Continuing with the rest of Romans chapter 9, we have the following:

Romans 9:

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

There is a mistake here made by Paul. It is an understandable mistake. He is making inferences from passages in the Old Testament which say that God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart”. (The biblical text is actually inconsistent. In four instances—Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34; 1 Sam 6:6—it says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.  In the rest, it either says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, or that Pharaoh’s heart “was hardened,” without specifying by whom.) The Prophet Joseph Smith was commissioned by the Lord to make an inspired translation of the Bible. In that translation, all those instances where it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart was changed to saying that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. That was due to a scribal error (intentional or accidental) in the Old Testament text which Paul was not aware of. God never hardens anybody’s heart. People harden their own hearts. Joseph Smith knew something that Paul didn’t know. Paul is relying on the text of the OT as he has it, without realizing or suspecting that the text might have been altered. Just because somebody is an Apostle, it does not mean that he is incapable of making a mistake. The Apostles had disagreements among themselves. Peter and Paul disagreed (Gal. 2:11). Paul and Barnabas disagreed (Acts 15:36–41). They couldn’t have all been right. One of them must have been right and the other one wrong.

When God says to Moses in Exodus 33:19 that “I … will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy,” it does not mean that God does so by means of an arbitrary fiat without any regard to a person’s worthiness or righteousness. No such thing is suggested or implied in that scripture. John MacArthur concludes his discussion of those verses with these words:

“Paul understood divine sovereignty. He understood that salvation was a work of God, a selective choice by God. He has mercy on whom He chooses to have mercy. You have to understand that. That’s what the Bible teaches...divine sovereignty.”

By which he means total predestination and foreordination of everything, including God’s selective and arbitrary choice of who will be saved and who will be damned, which is entirely heretical and false. God does not arbitrarily save or damn anybody. On the contrary, the express teaching of scripture is that God is “no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34–35; Rom. 2:11). That is the basis on which God saves or damns people. Both Peter and Paul agree on that one! Then skipping quite a lot of waffle and useless rhetoric, we come across the following comments which John MacArthur makes as he nears the end of his sermon:

“What is the final answer? The harmony of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is not available to you. It’s not. It’s unsearchable, unfathomable, inscrutable, incomprehensible, inconceivable.

“Psalm 139 says, ‘It’s too high.’ Psalm 92 says, ‘It’s too low.’ You don’t need more information. There it is. That’s all you’re going to get, folks. That’s all you’re going to get. Do you understand divine sovereignty? Do you understand human responsibility? Do you understand gospel duty? That’s enough...that’s enough.”

Well, he is talking a lot of nonsense as usual. It is possible to harmonize divine sovereignty with human freedom, as already explained several times in the previous posts. He then continues:

“And then verse 34 [Romans 11] just seals the deal here. ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord?’ Stop here, folks. Look, that’s taken out of Isaiah 40 verse 13, ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord?’ What is that saying? You can’t think the way God thinks. Okay? You’ve already reached your limit, folks. That’s it. …”

He is wrong about that too. It is possible to “know the mind of the Lord”. Paul explains how:

1 Corinthians 2:

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

We have the “mind of Christ” when we have his Spirit; then we can fathom what is in the mind of God. He continues:

“… The reason I can’t answer your question is, I don’t know any more than you know. All I know is what the Scripture says. …”

Not very well apparently! He continues:

“… And I am content to say I can’t know the mind of the Lord, but I can know the Lord and I can trust Him and some day maybe it will all be clear. Not an individual mind, nor the collective mind of all created beings could comprehend these mysteries.”

No surprise that he “can’t know the mind of the Lord;” that is because he does not have the “mind of Christ”. And he can’t “know the Lord” either, unless he has the “mind of Christ”. But if he wants to know the “mystery,” he has come to the right place to find out!

This concludes our discussion of John MacArthur’s sermon on God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom. The bottom line is that the Calvinistic and “Reformed” theology of predestination, “faith alone,” and TULIP is pure heresy. There is no other way to describe it. It is the most corrupt, evil, damnable, abominable perversion of the gospel that has ever been invented since the Arian heresy of the 4th century. It curses anybody who goes anywhere near it. And it has an awful lot of “false prophets” in the form of Evangelical and “Reformed” theologians, pastors, and preachers who are advocating it.

One more episode to go, stay tuned!

Sovereignty vs. Freedom—Part V

For the remainder of his sermon John MacArthur focuses on Romans chapter 9, with some references to chapters 10 and 11. His references to these passages are too confused, haphazard, disorganized, and disjointed to make it possible to give it a point by point response. The best way to answer it is simply to go through these chapters and briefly discuss the relevant portions of them, with occasional reference to what he has said. He sees Romans chapter 9 as “the strongest chapter in the Bible on divine sovereignty,” by which he means pure Calvinism. His idea of “divine sovereignty” is total predestination and predetermination of history, which leaves no room for human freewill. That of course is heretical and false. God is indeed “sovereign;” but that does not translate into Calvinism. Before we start digging into Romans chapter 9, however, some introductory comments about the writings of Paul in general are required.

The Calvinistic or “Reformed” false theology of predestination, TULIP, and “faith alone” are almost exclusively dependent on the writings of Paul. If you excise Paul out of the Bible, the so-called “Reformed” theology dies an instant death. That should ring alarm bells that something isn’t quite right somewhere. When a theology is based exclusively on the writings of a single biblical author (and a controversial one at that), with total disregard to what is taught in the rest of the Bible (including other writings of the same author), then something obviously isn’t working out the way it should. The whole of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teach that God rewards people for doing good, and punishes them for doing evil—regardless of their religious belief. That includes the teachings of Jesus himself. A book can be written about this subject. The following are some brief example:

Matthew 5:

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Matthew 5:

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Matthew 6:

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:

16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;

18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

Revelation 11:

18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Revelation 22:

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

According to all of these verses, God “rewards” people in heaven for doing good—and punishes them for doing evil. In the light of all the above, when we come across something like the following written by Paul:

Romans 4:

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

That should make us pause to think. There is an obvious contradiction here. Should we discard all the previous verses, and just stick to Romans 4:4; or should we try to reconcile them somehow? How should we reconcile them? And what should we do with the following verses, spoken by Paul himself, in the same epistle:

Romans 2:

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Or these, again spoken by Paul:

Galatians 6:

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

Or these, spoken by Peter, the chief of the Apostles:

Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation [and religion] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

And countless more such verses that can be found in the Old as well as the New Testaments? According to these verses, salvation itself is a reward for righteousness, and damnation a recompense for wickedness. The “Reformed” answer to that is to discard all the above, plus ¾ of the rest of the Bible (and misconstrue the rest), and just stick to a few verses of Paul! It shouldn’t take a lot of brainpower to figure out that that is not the right way to go about interpreting the word of God.

So how do we go about harmonizing what Paul says, with everything that Jesus taught, and with ¾ of the rest of the Bible? Luckily there is an explanation. The explanation is partly historical, and partly to do with the psychology of Paul. The explanation is that in those days there were many Jewish converts to Christianity who taught that Gentile converts needed to be circumcised, because that was the sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham. From their theological perspective of course they had a valid point. In principle, there is nothing wrong with being circumcised either, even if it is not done for religious reasons. But there was a catch. Once they were circumcised, then they felt obliged to adhere to the Laws of Moses, which law was fulfilled. That was in fact the real idea behind those Judaizers wanting Gentile converts to be circumcised. They wanted to have the glory of ruling over the converts. They wanted to become “Pharisees” to the Gentile converts to Christianity. The book of Acts is a very concise history, and doesn’t really explain how serious that controversy had become. It condenses it to the following short sentence:

Acts 15:

1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Which doesn’t reveal how serious that controversy had become. That controversy eventually became so serious that a special council was held in Jerusalem (around AD 50, Acts 15) of all the Apostles and elders of the Church to resolve the issue. Bearing in mind that travel was not easy in those days (there were no cars, planes, or railroads); also bearing in mind that communication was very difficult (no phones, emails, or efficient postal services), and how difficult it was to arrange such a meeting at that time; the fact that they went to such length to hold such a meeting in Jerusalem (the only one of its kind) to discuss this issue demonstrates how serious the controversy had become. The verdict of that council, finally declared by Peter the chief Apostle, was as follows:

Acts 15:

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe [referring to Cornelius].

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

That is the historical background behind it. Paul, who by his own admission was the “apostle of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13), became very concerned about this issue, as revealed in the following comments he makes to the Galatians:

Galatians 6:

13 For neither they themselves [the Jewish converts] who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

The so called Judaizers wanted to rule and preside over the Gentile converts (under the Law of Moses); and that was their way of doing it. By “glory in your flesh” he means glory in their circumcision. They wanted to get the glory having converts to Judaism rather than to Christianity. Paul again is alluding to the same thing in the following:

Galatians 5:

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

As a general principle there is nothing wrong with being circumcised. There is probably more good in it than bad—or only good in it and nothing bad. The reason why Paul is so dead against it is because of the Jewish nuances that was being associated with it by the Judaizers at that time. The whole of Galatians in fact was written to address that issue. When he talks about “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6), that is what he was referring to.

Paul became extremely concerned about this issue, even to the point of obsession, and went over the top. All of his talk about “faith alone,” and “grace alone,” and no “works” etc. needs to be understood in that context. It doesn’t mean what Calvinists and “Reformed” theologians would have us believe it means. Paul himself never meant it to be understood that way.

The other Apostles were aware of the writings of Paul, and recognized the risks of misunderstanding that they presented, and tried to counter it in their own ways, but without coming out in outright opposition to Paul. Peter tries to counter it with these words:

2 Peter 3:

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

That was a sideswipe at Paul. It was his way of warning others of the dangers of misinterpreting Paul. But he does it in a gentle way so he doesn’t undermine the authority of Paul. James does the same thing in these words:

James 2:

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Here James is doing the same thing that Peter was doing, but he does it in his own way—without staging a confrontation with Paul. What he is basically saying is that a lot of that kind of stuff that Paul had written was crap! But he wants to be discreet about it. He doesn’t want to undermine the authority of a fellow Apostle. They were all aware of the risks involved in the writings of Paul, and how easily they could be misunderstood, and they tried to counter it in their own ways, but without discrediting Paul. It seems to have worked too for 16 centuries. But by the time we reach the 16th century, those warnings were not of much help anymore, and the heretical Protestant “Reformers” were able to have it their way. This is the necessary background and introduction to the writings of Paul that needs to be understood, before embarking on a more detailed analysis of his teachings in Romans 9, which I will attempt to do in the next post.

Sovereignty vs. Freedom—Part IV

The next set of scriptures that he quotes in support of his theology are from Acts 2 and 4 (emphasis added):

Acts 2:

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 4:

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Also acts 1:15–20 concerning Judas, how it had been foretold in prophecy that he should betray Jesus. His argument basically is that because the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the events associated with it have been foreseen or foreordained in advance, and foretold in prophecy, that it is incompatible with human freewill, or that it creates a paradox with respect to human freewill and accountability that the scriptures do not resolve. This is what he says (highlights added):

“Turn to Acts chapter 2. Peter gets up on the Day of Pentecost, verse 22, and he’s preaching in Jerusalem. And he says, ‘Men of Israel, listen to these words,’ this is the great Pentecost sermon. ‘Jesus the Nazarene, the man attested to you by God with miracles, wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst just as you yourselves know.’ Parenthetically, Jesus is the subject.

“‘This man, Jesus, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.’ Wow! Foreknowledge meaning preordination. Jesus was delivered to be crucified by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. That’s a divine decree by God. ‘You nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.’

“Wow! It was God’s plan and you did it. It was God’s will and you’re guilty. It was a divine decree but you are responsible for your act against Christ.

“Chapter 4 of the book of Acts and verse 27, ‘For truly in this city, Jerusalem, there were gathered against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel.’ So who were the guilty parties in the execution of Jesus Christ? Well here are mentioned Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles being the Romans who executed Him and mistreated Him, and the people of Israel who sought His death, you’re all guilty. What did all of these people do, Herod, Pontius Pilate, Gentiles, people of Israel, what did they do in killing Christ?

“Verse 28, ‘To do...speaking to God...whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur.’ Wow, they did exactly what God predetermined to be done. They did exactly what God planned to be done. God had preordained, predetermined the death of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for sin. And yet, all the people who were complicit(?) in the execution of Christ stand guilty before God for a heinous crime. Scripture consistently puts divine sovereignty and human responsibility together without any effort to explain how they work together. It was Judas, you remember, in the first chapter of Acts who was prophesied to do what he did because God ordained that he would do what he did, and when he did what he did he was held fully accountable for what he did and went to his own place, the place he should have gone, hell.”

The first thing to point out here is that he confuses God’s foreknowledge with God’s foreordination. They are two different things. God’s foreknowledge is an extension of his omniscience. God knows all things, including everything that will happen in the future. It does not mean that man’s actions were not freely made. It does mean, however, that man’s actions were made by permission from God, because God had the power prevent them from happening if he had wanted to. God’s foreknowledge of the future does not abrogate man’s freedom; but (coupled with God’s omnipotence and omnipresence) it does make God sovereign over all. The wickedness of the antediluvian sinners was known to God and foreseen long before it happened, and their actions were perfectly freely made; but God was sovereign overall, and put an end to it at the time and occasion that he saw fit. MacArthur’s assumption that God’s ability to foresee the future necessitates that he has predestined the future to be as it is, or that man’s actions therefore are not freely made, is not a logical requirement.

Foreordination is something entirely different from foreknowledge. Foreordination is when God determines by an act of divine decree that something should happen. It is God’s sovereign will, not man’s. Jesus Christ was foreordained from the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of the world. That means that God had predetermined that it should happen. That is not the same as foreknowledge. God sees and knows all that will happen in the future like a movie. He knows and sees that I will be playing football in ten years time at such and such a time and place. He can even use his foreknowledge to intervene in that future event to prevent me from having an accident which otherwise I would be powerless to foresee or prevent. But that does not mean that he has foreordained, predestined, or predetermined that I should be playing football in ten years time, at that particular time and place; or that my decision to do so was not freely made. John MacArthur mixes these two up. He fails to distinguish between foreknowledge and foreordination.

Returning to the main subject of reconciling God’s sovereign act in foreordaining the Atonement, with man’s freewill and culpability in carrying out God’s predetermined will, there is no contradiction. It is possible to reconcile the two. I have shown in the first post in this series (Part I) how the two can be reconciled. His inability to reconcile them is because he is sold out into Calvinism. He is prewired to think in those terms. Once you start thinking out of that box, reconciliation becomes possible.

As an aside, the Book of Mormon teaches the foreordained and predetermined nature of the Atonement of Jesus Christ more extensively and comprehensively than the Bible does. References are too numerous to quote:

The remainder of his sermon will be discussed in a subsequent post.