Featured MacArthur on the State of Evangelical Christianity

Well, you are talking about what he said.

 

It's all one big fat moot point because it's all been mysteriously predestinated by an unchangeable mysterious decree from the mystery of eternity past. You can't change anything in Hindu Fatalism.

 

Sir, why not address the thread topic? I am trying, if you will allow, to talk about evangelism, where we present the good news to all people, just as Christ commanded.

 

And MacArthur in some way disagrees with that?

 

Did I say Dr. MacArthur disagreed with presenting the gospel to all people as commanded by Christ. Why not address what I did say?

 

I did. It's inferior to what Mac said that you were trying to correct.

 

Well folks, now we know...

 

Yep. Mac got it right. His blood did not cleanse the non-elect.

 

Really? Prideful much?

There are a few issues in which RC Sproul had a better position. I also see Piper being closer to the biblical positions on a few issues than MacArthur. (Mainly, MacArthur's dispensationalism is missing the mark.)

 

Agreed. Cultural interpretation, rather than observed interpretation of the text, is leading to assertions that are not accurate.

 

"Is the Evangelical Movement Really "Evangelical"?
Written by John MacArthur | Oct 20, 2020
What denominational label would best describe the following person's religious beliefs?

He claims to be a committed, born-again Christian but isn't sure that Jesus is truly God incarnate. He isn't convinced that God has infallible knowledge of (much less sovereign control over) the future. He doesn't believe the Bible is truth without any mixture of error. He doesn't believe what the Bible says about how the universe was created. He doesn't believe people must acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior—or even know anything about him—in order to have God's favor. He doesn't believe Satan is literally real. He doesn't believe God is full of wrath against sin. And he certainly doesn't believe in eternal punishment. In fact, he doesn't particularly care for words like sin, atonement, repentance, expiation, or propitiation. He dismisses such terminology as useless religious jargon that fails to communicate anything to normal people. But in reality, what he despises most of all about those words is the underlying doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which he also doesn't believe in. He is convinced that God will forgive without demanding any payment for guilt."

I do not know of any conservative denomination that would claim this lost soul as a member. Sure MacArthur can use his imagination for better causes than this!

 

Have you ever seen Mac lose a debate?
He and D.J Kennedy owned/own every debate stage they set foot on. (Even when I disagree with them)
Mohler was a student of Kennedy and uses same debate style. He just lacks the intelligence or memory Kennedy had.(though he is much smarter than me)

 

Win/loss is in the eye of the observer. Therefore, I don't doubt you think MacArthur has never lost a debate.

MacArthur is dead wrong in regards to dispensationalism. In that area he has adopted a cultural view rather than a biblical view. Regarding soteriology, MacArthur is accurate in his understanding.

 

And he is accurate on dispensationalism.
Surely you don't think there is no difference between The Age of Innocence and Today.
From my perspective I want to see him lose because I am not a Cal.

 

He's dead wrong on dispensationalism because dispensationalism is a man-made attempt to break up the Bible into sections rather than view the Bible as a smooth flow of covenants that fulfill the promise of God.

 

It's no such thing.

 

Correct, dispensationalism is no such thing. It's a made-up breakdown of the Bible.

 

No. It's a way of understanding The Bible.

 

Who said he did? You are posting, but who knows why....