Featured True or false statement?

Misquoting ancient sources seems to be standard for people trying to defend any bad doctrine.

 

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/

John M;

Kim R;

 

pt2;

 

pt3;

 

So what field do you think RC studies, or has studied...that MacArthur has not? What expertise do you think RC has that MacArthur does not?

The primary point is that those who say MacArthur is not a theologian is a little absurd to me. Particularly when you compare their doctrine.


God bless.

 

First you say that MacArthur is not a Theologian, now you say MacArthur is a lesser Theologian because he hasn't written a book on Systematic Theology?

I would suggest to you that Systematic Theology is the very reason why we have so many confused people in regards to Theology.

My definition of a Theologian is simply one...who knows what he is talking about.

And R.C. has some pretty funky teachings, lol.

So you think knowledge of Systematic Theology, or creating Systematic Theology...makes one more knowledgeable?

Well, you need to moderate your thread, my friend, and set these fellows straight. Let them know that Dispensationalism is a Systematic Theology and therefore must be correct, because only Theologians create them, lol. You might want to remind what the OP is again while your at it.

And that's it for me in this one.


God bless.

 

The problem is not mine, because MacArthur's Theology and Soteriology and Eschatology...is more accurate than that of RC. That you feel RC is of a higher standard of Theologian, great, I am happy for you. I love RC, and enjoy listening to him, but, that doesn't mean I don't think he could stand to improve his Theology, and I believe if he would just listen to his friend...that might happen.

Not now, anyway:

I am glad you have magnanimously begun to agree that John is a Theologian, very big of you. When you can understand John's superiority as a Theologian based on the Theology itself, as opposed to the works of the individuals in view, then you will begin to make a different public statement in regards to who is a Theologian or not.

The truth is, E...you are a theologian. You have a knowledge of God and you publicly declare that knowledge. It is your responsibility, standing in the role of teacher (which is an apt description of anyone engaged in Evangelism)...to be expert in that which you are teaching.

There is a dire warning given to those who would be teachers, and not everyone considers that. I want you to consider that.


God bless.

 

If more people spent less time in learning their Systems of Theology, and more time in the source of Theology, there would be a more united Body of Christ today.

But because many have thrown off our Teacher for teachers...there is much confusion, controversy, and hostility in the Body of Christ. It is sad that Paul could address this issue in the First Century...and it is still an issue in this day. Makes me wonder how the Corinthians responded to Paul's rebuke.

Of course, he did have to write to them more than once...


God bless.

 

What is the name of this systematic theology text by Sproul to which you refer?

 

I'm sorry, I'm not knocking the book, but it is ridiculous to refer to that as a ST in any sense. (Sproul does however have a lengthy video series on systematic theology.) MacArthur (and some associates, I think) are set to release a systematic theology textbook within the next year.

Now, a valid comparison would be Sproul's knowledge of philosophy and related fields. MacArthur has never pretended to be anything but a New Testament expositor. Regardless, none of this really has anything to do with the question at hand. There are amils and postmils who are expositors and premils and pretribbers who are systematic theologians.

 

I like to think I do, lol.

Now, is John MacArthur a Theologian or not?


God bless.

 

The doctrine of immanency (frequently, the doctrine of the imminent Rapture is taught) makes God a liar. (Don't you agree, anything that makes God a liar is demonic?)

According to popular Rapture doctrine, there is going to be a Rapture on a specific, even if unknown, date. Every generation that has passed before that date, but that was deliberately given the impression that the Rapture could be within their lives, has been lied to. How have they not been lied to? The were led to believe something that wasn't true.

In actuality, the Bible nowhere teaches the lie of false immanency. Jesus didn't teach his return was immanent (not until the Abomination that Causes Desolation, in which case his return would really be immanent). The Bible does't each a pretribulation rapture, let alone an immanent pretribulation rapture. Jesus' first coming was identified down to the year by Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy. No BC student of the OT would have thought Christ's coming was immanent, until it honestly was immanent.