John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

Jesus clearly stated that to become a disciple...not a believer.

 

I have a problem with that translation in light of context.

Matthew 19:17-25 17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, " 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 19 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' " 20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. 23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"


Key phrases that lead me to believe we are talking about salvation here.

 

Scripture in context triumphs everytime. Well done.

peace to youraying:

 

Once again we are presented with a rejection of the Sermon on the Mount as being not applicable to the "Church Age."

CONCLUSION: The Sermon on the Mount was addressed to Jews who had followed Christ and who had seen His astounding healing miracles. They had been told by John the Baptist and by the Lord Himself that the kingdom promised by all the prophets was near at hand. The Lord, in this Sermon, set forth the kind of righteousness that was required in order to be fit to enter the kingdom. The Sermon was legal in character and condemnatory in effect. Though the gospel is not revealed in this Sermon, the Lord did make it clear that the solution for those who lack the needed righteousness is found, not in SELF, but in HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS (Matt. 6:33). Thus we have the first beatitude (Matt. 5:3) showing the blessedness of the person who recognizes his own spiritual bankruptcy.

The Sermon was not addressed to the Church (although there were certainly some in the audience who would later become members of Christ’s body). It did not set forth Church truth. The revelation of Church truth and mystery truth would come later, with Paul as God’s chief instrument in conveying this revelation. There is nothing in this Sermon which sets forth the great distinctive truths of this Church Age. There is much in this Sermon which is profitable and precious to the heart of every Church Age believer who loves God’s infallible Word.

This conclusion has been extended by some Dispensationalists to the entirety of the four gospels. I cannot accept rejecting everything we know directly about God (in the form of His Son) based on His life on this earth.

The article says that the Sermon on the mount is legalistic. That's the same thing as saying that Christ's message was legalistic and that the true gospel could not be preached until after His crucification. That distorts Christ's message and minimizes His impact to only that of dying and being resurrected. Personally, I believe that Jesus' ministry was much more than that. This stuff is heresy.

 

Lou, don't waste cyberspace. I only have the time and energy to expose your intellectual dishonesty one smear at a time.

I don't know anything about Goodman. I do know that you and webdog have a history of misquoting and taking people's statements out of context.

Will you ever admit that MacArthur bases his beliefs and teachings on his understanding of what scripture teaches? If so (and that is obviously true to anyone without an agenda to push) then just say you disagree with his interpretation. Quit making the laughable claim that he teaches a works based salvation and that his views are extra-biblical.

Everytime you do, you reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest and therefore anything you write on the subject fails the test of scholarship.

peace to youraying:

 

Why are you avoiding the question?

 

This is the entire account of the rich young ruler in Luke.

Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.
Luk 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
Luk 18:21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Luk 18:23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
Luk 18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Not only does it NOT say that this is about decipleship, it clearly state that it is about entering into the kingdom of God. How do you support your false contention?

 

Let's see. I asked you about 5 times to give MacArthur's quotes in context.

What was my question to you? Oh, I remember. MacArthur was speaking of "responding" to something with whole-hearted commitment to Christ. You kept saying that proved he taught a "works-based" salvation that frustrates grace. I asked, "What does MacArthur say the person is responding to?" You wouldn't/couldn't answer. Why not? Because it demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty on this issue.

And you kept asking about the passage in James. I took the time to answer every question you had. I discussed the book of James, in depth, to show you how the context could be seen as an address to the lost.

You promised to respond, but you never did. Again, your intellectual dishonesty on display for all to see.

And then you start a thread, not to ask a question, but to proclaim to everyone that Lou Martuneac has decided to conduct an in depth analysis of John MacArthur's "distinctives of Lordship Salvation"....at some point in the future. We're still waiting.

What's wrong? Are you having trouble twisting his words out of context? Must be tough dealing with all those references to scripture, huh?

Oh, I forgot. If Lou Martuneac disagrees with someone's interpretation of scripture that makes it "extra-biblical". Since it's "extra-biblical", Lou Martuneac gets to call that person a heretic by comparing them to well known heretics. Of course, that makes Lou Martuneac the final authority on what is "biblical" and what is not.

I usually attempt to answer every question as frankly as I can. This time, Lou Martuneac, I am not particularly motivated to answer your questions, since you won't answer mine.

I am not motivated to answer your questions because you will not/are not able to engage scripture on this isse, but instead make outrageous allegations that are easily demonstrated to be false.

Like I said, don't waste the cyber-space. I only have time and energy to address one smear at a time.

peace to youraying:

 

Based on your previous posts concerning John MacArthur, I believe most people reading this will understand why I don't want to accept your word that the quotes are "accurate and verifiable".

I only have the time and energy to address your intellectual dishonesty one smear at a time.

peace to youraying:

 

Lou,

If you want to point out the errors of JM, fine. But why are you muddying the waters by bringing in this Goodman fellow?

Please stay on topic. You are loosing me with all the unnecessary verbage.

BTW, are you trying to say in 1000s of words that JM teaches salvation by works?

Yours truly,
Tom

 

Lou , take your traveling road show some place else . Your billboard :"John MacArthur is an arch-heretic" isn't playing here .