Featured MacArthur on the State of Evangelical Christianity

A very poor way that hinders the Christian from seeing the whole connection of God's word as one.

 

How did he get it wrong, other than you saying he did?

 

Sir, are you trying to be obscure? What did Dr. MacArthur get wrong?

 

Maybe it hinders you.

 

I have been trying to understand what point Mr. Reynolds is trying to make, in his 7 posts addressed to me.
He says "Mac is right" and I am wrong. Ok, got that, a taint so post. But seven?
He says I suggested Christ's death "cleansed the sins of the non-elect?" But of course Christ's death did not cleanse anyone not elect. When an individual is placed in Christ they undergo the washing of regeneration, and the resulting "new creation" has been cleansed of sin, past, present and future.

Does Mr. Reynolds equate "ransom" with "redemption?" Who knows....

 

You disagrees with Mac saying the blood cleansed the sins of only the elect.

 

Fiction without quote. A smear, A falsehood, a waste of space....
Does Mr. Reynolds equate "ransom" with "redemption?" Who knows....
Will Mr. Reynolds answer the question? Who knows....

 

If you find fault with what Mac said, then you must equate the two as meaning the same.

 

LOL, I do not equate ransom with redemption. That is unbiblical nonsense. Note now Mr. Reynolds charges me with equating the two, but does not indicate his view. Go figure....

 

Here is the "corrected" presentation of the gospel:

I am bound by Scripture and reason to declare that Jesus is Lord, in the full sense of that term, and I am his slave, also in the full sense of that term. I love him. I bow to him as God the Son in all the fullness of his deity and with faith in all the fullness of his work. My slavery to him springs from a heart of love that drives me to obey his Word gladly. This is a perfect reflection of his infinite mind and holy nature. What Christ do I love? What Christ do I preach? We preach Christ, who is the eternal Son, one in nature with the eternal Father, and one with the eternal Spirit—the Triune God. He is the Creator and Life-giver as well as the Sustainer of the universe, and all who live in it. He is the virgin-born Son of God and Son of Man—fully divine and fully human. He is the one whose life on earth perfectly pleased God, and whose righteousness is given to all who by grace through faith become one with him. He is the only acceptable sacrifice for sin that pleases God, and whose death under divine judgment paid in full the ransom for all humankind, providing the means of forgiveness and eternal life. He is alive, having been raised from the dead by the Father, validating his work of atonement, publicly declaring him righteous, and .providing redemption, sanctification, and glorification of the elect, bringing them safely into His heavenly presence. He is at the Father's throne interceding for all believers. I approach his perfect, pure, inspired, inerrant, and true Word with objectivity, rationality, veracity, authority, incompatibility, integrity, and unreserved faith.

Note: These are not all Dr. MacArthur's words, but they all spring from scripture.​

 

No, but dispensationalism definitely hinders Christians in fully understanding the whole of the Kingdom.

 

Hinders neither Mac nor me.

 

You have no idea about John MacArthur. However, it seems you may have an unhealthy affection for John MacArthur. Do you think Jesus may correct him when God calls him home? I think so. After all, MacArthur is equally a sinner and thus is flawed by his own sinful nature.

As for you, I believe you are hindered by dispensationalism, which is why you have biblical blindspots.

 

I am actually not a tremendous fan of MacArthur.
His Biblical understanding and my Biblical understanding have far less blind spots than yours.
It is foolish to look at Scripture and not see dispensations as you choose to call them.
You see no difference in "The age of Innocence" and today?

 

Well, I guess all the saints before the 1800s were foolish.
Dispensationalism misses the forrest for the trees. It creates false narratives by claiming dispensations that don't exist, except in the mind of the dispensationalist who is making them up as he reads.

 

Where does MacArthur miss the forest? Where do I miss the forest?
Dispensationalism was not invented in the 1800's. Named maybe, but not invented.

 

Evangelists are those engaged as Christ's ambassadors, carrying forth the ministry of Christ. You can find a reference three times in the New Testament, Acts of the Apostles 21:8, Ephesians 4:11, and 2 Timothy 4:5.

I think the idea is to spread the gospel, take it outside its current sphere of influence. So a key to evangelism is to start with Christ's gospel, and not another gospel.

 

Reynolds, it was created in the 1800s by people like Scofield who were attempting to break down the Bible as though they were scientists observing a bug.

You miss the beautiful flow of grace from God's covenant with Adam all the way to God's new covenant with his elect. Instead, you insist on God changing at different times and seasons...even though God never changes.

I grew up dispensational, I saw how it missed the puzzle because it kept focusing on individual pieces and then attempted to mash pieces together despite the fact they don't fit.

Take, for instance, the misguided teaching of the rapture as a pretrib removal from trouble. It's entirely fabricated, yet most dispensationalists have bought it hook, line and sinker.

 

They named it. They did not create it. God does not change, but His covenants with men have changed.
Do you contend the Adamic covenant is identical to The NewCovenant?

 

In order to start with Christ's gospel, it must be based on an accurate translation into English, for those trying to spread the gospel in English. One of the posters indicated others believed "ransom" results in redemption. However, nearly everyone knows that paying a ransom only provides the opportunity for redemption. The alternate view is Universalism.

Lets take a look at some of the corrupt translations contributing to "another gospel."
1 Timothy 2:6
NLT - He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone. This is the message God gave to the world at just the right time.
GNT - who gave himself to redeem the whole human race. That was the proof at the right time that God wants everyone to be saved,
GWT - He sacrificed himself for all people to free them from their sins. This message is valid for every era.
D-RB - Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.
WNT - who gave Himself as the redemption price for all--a fact testified to at its own appointed time,

Mark 10:45
CEV - The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a slave who will give his life to rescue many people.
GNT - For even the Son of Man did not come to be served; he came to serve and to give his life to redeem many people."
D-RB - For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.
WNT - For the Son of Man also did not come to be waited upon, but to wait on others, and to give His life as the redemption-price for a multitude of people."

Matthew 20:28 - the same versions listed for Mark 10:45 mistranslated ransom in the same way. Also note the NLT, CEV and GWT inconsistently translate the Greek word meaning "ransom."

Now I may have been too fervent, too overly zealous, in my fault finding concerning the WNT, as "redemption-price" is a valid translation. However, since it suggests accomplishment of redemption, I still think "ransom" is a far superior choice.