The bad theology on this board

He would also though add, when we allow him to be able to do such!

 

Consider this, "“I believe justification by faith alone, as much as I believe there is a God…I have never varied from it, no, not a hair’s breadth from 1738 to this day.” -Journal, 1766

“Taking the word in a more particular sense, faith is a divine evidence and conviction, not only that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,’ but also that Christ ‘loved me, and gave himself for me.'” -The Scripture Way of Salvation

 

And you, however I note that you are still avoiding actually backing up your claim!

Present the evidence, properly cited from MacArthur's own works, that demonstrates what you say is, in fact, the case.

 

Are you aware of the glaring weakness of Y-1? He is not in the habit of providing specifics. He would rather lob charges with no supporting data. He quotes posts without addressing the contents also.

 

John MacArthur's One Nature Teaching
What is Lordship salvation and is it biblical? | carm

 

I habe done that, but you seem to always say that it is foolish, not good etc!

 

he held that in the end, it is the will of the sinner enabled by grace to freely decide for Christ, correct?

 

Sorry I want your interaction with MacArthur's works - relying on secondary sources that you simply link to (looked for after the claims were made no doubt) is not a demonstration that you have looked into the matter - rather it is a demonstration that you are simply repeating parrot fashion what we have heard.

 

Those were sources that I have used before , and have a group of them for treferences!

 

Still not your own interaction - show me you have interacted with MacArthur's work or admit you are merely repeating what others have said!

 

I have no quall using other sources, as believe that they accurately detail what is being held!

 

I don't know what a 'quall' is!

However I do note that the way you have just admitted to not feeling the need to verify what you say is a declaration that everything you say must be treated as suspect.

 

No, rather that I will use botht he scriptures and external sources to cite to discuss things!

 

Not quall, qualms.

 

You "habe" done that?

Yes, I say your posts are generally foolish.

You quote posts but do not interact with the content of them.

You do not provide specifics. You do no homework.

You ask the same questions repeatedly when answers have been given repeatedly.

These are just some of the complaints I have about your posts.

I think you can guess what other complaints I have along with many other posters here.

 

That is not correct. Go back and read the quotes I provided.

Edited to add this from the previous page:

“We allow, it is the work of God alone to justify, to sanctify, and to glorify; which three comprehend the whole of salvation.” ~Wesley

 

The problem is the lack of verification in the use of external sources - it suggests a lack of discernment and a certain careless in regards to truthfulness - what you actually mean is that if you can find that says what you want it to say you will use it.

 

Understood it completely

God bless.

 

That is the logical conclusion.

What I would criticize in this statement would be the lack of distinguishing Hell as not having human inhabitants at this point, lol.

You might consider that MacArthur is, in this quote, focusing on the extreme end of UT. I am sure he, as we do, recognize the various inflections placed on any particular doctrine. If Christ's Sacrifice was actually atoning for every man and woman (as some will conclude, despite best efforts of teachers to nullify such a conclusion) then we see John's statement perfectly reasonable.

And I just have to say, Jon, that it is a bit conflicting for yourself to nullify Unlimited Atonement by saying "...the "Unlimited Atonement" of unlimited atonement people is neither unlimited nor actual atonement."

Better to clarify the position with, perhaps, a different name. The fact of the matter is that no matter how good the teacher, preacher, or evangelist, what is taught is going to be strained through the colander of the individual mind, and what comes through is often not what was taught by the teacher.

Who doesn't? I too disagree with this position, where we see obvious statements referring to the world (meaning all men) taught as having to refer to the Elect. But...this is hardly something exclusive to MacArthur, and hardly a reason to justify that he is unfair to opposing views or that he is a "horrible Theologian," lol. If that is the case, and we can make that charge towards everyone. Because everyone is wrong on one position or another and the reason is usually due to the indoctrination undergone when one affiliates with a particular System of Theology, rather than simply Being Bible Students.

Present company excluded, of course...



I myself find both Calvinsts and Arminians in grave error on these issues and the solution is very simple. So unless we can ourselves be fair and point out the error of all groups then we are just as guilty as the charge you lay against MacArthur.

I have some problems with some of what he teaches as well, but as far as being a Theologian...I regularly laugh at some of the "great theologians" here who say...he isn't even a Theologian. The fact is that many who comfort themselves with a piece of paper on the wall are horribly ignorant of some pretty basic teachings of Scripture. And the reason is...indoctrination. And it is pride that will not allow them to even consider that what they have been taught could possibly be in error.

John does his homework. John does the necessary work. Far better than most of the teachers, preachers, and "theologians" in the public eye today.

So is there anything else in which John is unfair to opposing views? It may be your own position on this doctrine makes you a little sensitive to it. The best thing to do in regards to disagreeing with a teacher is to examine the doctrine itself, rather than the teacher. The former is a little more difficult.


God bless.

God bless.