John MacArthur

[Lil Sister]

Wow, I just glanced at pages 1, 7 and 8 and wondered "where did the topic go?" For my part, my hubby and I have been most familiar with John MacArthur, Jr. for about 12 years now. From what we have observed, he has changed from being a Baptist,to a Calvinistic Baptist, to a reformed ("deep water") evangelical. Much of this is because he reads a great deal of Puritan/reformed writers, and hob-nobs with RC Sproul. We think Sproul has had a negatively liberalizing influence on MacArthur; as RC likes Billy Graham, signed the Catholic-evangelical pact, and is much more ecumenical than a pre-1990's MacArthur would have been comfortable being. [IE: John has been a guest speaker at Westminster Seminary, has given a verbal pat on the back to Calvary Chapel pastor Greg Laurie, and spoken positively of Charismatic crazy Jack Hayford.] We love John MacArthur, but wish he would shore up the lines abit, as he used to. We are very concerned about what we see happening with him. Shows we need to continually pray for all in God's ministry; that they would remain fixed on Christ & the Word, and not go soft through turmoil and trial--or popularity.

 

[aefting]

RC Sproul did NOT sign the Catholic-evangelical pact. In fact, he has written some of the best anti-ECT articles out there.

Andy

 

[Daniel David]

Lil Sister, a cursory study even of history will demonstrate that calvinism runs with Baptist theology as much as any other doctrine.

 

[Rachel]

I listen to John MacArthur every once in a while and I haven't heard him say anything unbiblical. Has he?? I have always liked him.
Maybe I need to go back and read this whole thread, I have just read this one page.

Rachel

 

[Lil Sister]

Please understand, I highly respect MacArthur. But he's been dropping his guard--that's what I'm saying. As one who has listened to/read him for many years, we see a subtle shift. He isn't a heretic, but he's "loosening up" in ways that aren't healthy.
As far as calvinism--we call it the doctrines of grace because we don't follow a man--we have no problem with his believing/teaching the doctrines of grace. It's when he is so influenced by reformed teaching that his video has a picture of the London Baptist Confession 1689 next to the Bible and a comment is made regarding the proper interpretation of Scripture--implying that the LBC 1689 is "it".
What I commented on was the progression of simply a Baptist, to Calvinistic Baptist to...etc. I didn't say being a Calvinistic Baptist was wrong; merely a part of how he has changed.
I also know that--while Sproul has said much ado against ECT, it's my understanding that he & MacArthur actually did sign it (or the follow-up agreement). It was a very weird, mixed message that was given.
Sproul is also pro-psychology; whereas MacArthur has taken a stand for Biblical Counseling (opposed to psychology). Sproul & the Westminster set are willy-nilly on Genesis (literal 6 day creation); there is a big scouring at Westminster West right now of profs who believe in a literal Genesis.
MacArthur's recommendation of Jack Hayford & Greg Laurie should make red flags wave in your mind...these men are full of false doctrine.
I'm not saying dump the man--I'm saying pray for the man! He's being tempted to loosen up. He needs to stand strong.

 

[Lil Sister]

I have gone in search of what I'd read regarding Sproul & MacArthur signing the follow-up ECT. As I cannot find that information, I will not trust my memory; and apologize for making that charge that I cannot verify. Please forgive me.
My other concerns remain. And my emphasis is also there: we greatly esteem John MacArthur, but are concerned in the shift we see him taking away from Biblical Baptist (which includes his belief in the doctrines of grace), to a more generalized "deep water" evangelical.

 

[Rhetorician]

Originally posted by Greg Linscott:
This is an area I am somewhat fuzzy on as a young, inexperienced guy. If, say, you are aasked, as C4K, to speak at a Catholic church, do you speak as you would to your own Baptist congregation on a Sunday AM? Do you go out of your way to expose the error of Catholic doctrine, thus (risking) alienating your audience? As a separated fundamentalist, do I take an opportunity to speak at a evangelical church about the practice of personal holiness and use specific examples? Do I reference the imminent return of Christ when speaking at my Presbyterian brother's church?

Am I paranoid here? Those of you who have experienced these situations, how do you handle it? Do you burn bridges on principle (as MacArthur seems to do sometimes, keeping it on topic... )?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Wow! I forgotten I posted in this thread

.

When I spoke at a Catholic function, I simply put together a reading of scriptures on peace, they all led to the fact that there is only peace in Jesus Chrit. No I did not attack the RC Church while I was there.

 

[Rhetorician]

Brethren! Brethren!

I thought we had fought all of the fundamentalist's/secondary separationist's/"Sword of the Lord" things to an end (or at least a draw?). That is all so much old news! Let us move on to more germane things like reaching the lost while it is day, taking care of the poor, working for social justice, etc., et al.

I may be called a "compromiser" but I have come to look for the "Gospel" in all Christian denoms. I take my fellowhip with any/all who will say they confess Christ alone and take his call to discipleship seriously. We baptists for far too long have thought that we are the only ones correct about anything. I know I will get some "cards and letters" over my opinion.

Nevertheless, I do have some credentials: I was raised in an SBC church, under a Bob Jones pastor, was a church bus pastor and "soul winner" for years and years (and still am), attended bus conferences with Jach Hyles, attended Mid America Baptist Theol. Seminary, and one year even went to Percy Ray's Camp Zion in Mertle, MS. But, since I have gotten out into the "real world" I have found that there are many God-loving and God-fearing folk in other denoms. I have two advanced degress (from regionally accredited institutions from schools outside the "Baptist circle.")

This has broadened my perspective. I am able to see more clearly now. I know some who read this will call me a compromiser. And that is OK! Maybe from your perspective that is true. I just go where I can fellowship around the essence of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus.

As far as speaking to another denom; I am trained as a Rhetorician as well as Theologian. The first thing one is trained to do in Public Address is to do an Audience Analysis. You establish credibility w/those to whom you are speaking. By employing rhetorical methods like ethos, pathos, and logos you possibly can persuade them to at the very least listen to your point of view.

I still have a "high view of Scripture" and believe in Plenary Verbal Inspiration. I am still as "fundamental" as any of you claim to be (I mean the set of Fundamentals that were written in the early 1900s). But, I do have some "fun" from time to time, I am not filled with so much "dam," and hopefully I have arrived at some level of "mental" ability.

What I am trying to say is that I am still where I was, but I am just not "mad about it" any more. For those of you who may think that I have "left the faith," please give me the "benefit of the 'Christian doubt'" as it were.

I hope this helps promote some to serious thought.

Please RSVP to my email if you want to talk!

sdg!

rd

 

[7-Kids]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
A poster who cannot participate in baptist-only segment asked me "Is John MacArthur a fundamentalist or a new evangelical?"

Thoughts?

What I know of John MacArthur (and I follow him for years) you can not be more of a fundamentalist than he is. have y'all seen his vidio call does the truth realy matters? If you did you would know.

 

[blackbird]

John MacArthor is about as straight as Crazy Horse's arrows---just ask General Custer!!!

About as fundamentally straight as any theologian I have in my library!

 

[Dr. Bob]

His study Bible is a MUST for believers and his NT commentary set (like 4 vol on Matthew) is one of the greatest helps for pastors.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Dr. Bob, Amen...his study Bible and his commentary set are a very worthy tool for pastors.

 

[4His_glory]

His study Bible is what I primarily use in study and personal devotions.

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
His study Bible is a MUST for believers and his NT commentary set (like 4 vol on Matthew) is one of the greatest helps for pastors.

I just bought his study Bible and have been going through his notes. His Lordship(Mastery views) views and "All true believers will..." permeate his notes. If a believer's behavior does not match up to what Mac says, we can question the validity of his salvation.

In fact I think his notes are so good, that I should carry his study Bible everywhere with me to 'validate' people's salvation for them.

IFBReformer

 

[Dr. Bob]

You don't think that way yourself? "All true believers will . . . "?

I sure do. If I DIDN'T believe that my view/interpretation was correct and I still held it, I'd be the most double-minded man.

 

[blackbird]

You can get on his mailing list---he will send books out(every now and then) free--also tapes of the month.

Grace To You
PO Box 920
Santa Clarita, CA 91380

www.gracetoyou.org

I remember he preached at the Pastor's School at FBC, Jacksonville, FL---to which I recall that Jerry Falwell publically declared MacArthur as a Southern Baptist!!!

How do you like that, Dr. Bob????

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
You don't think that way yourself? "All true believers will . . . "?

I sure do. If I DIDN'T believe that my view/interpretation was correct and I still held it, I'd be the most double-minded man.

Dr. Bob,

It is one thing to hold to a particular doctrinal viewpoint - we should each study God's Word out and come to standards and convictions.

That is not what I am saying.

John MacArthur permeates his notes with things like all true believers will live righteous and godly lives, they will progressively grow more and more holy and cannot stall in that process. If they do, they prove their prove they do not really have saving faith(they are unsaved).

So that is what I meant. I, unlike MacArthur, believe that true believers can have more than just "momments of failure", but can have weeks, months and years of failure. The scriptures tell a true believers works(or lack there of) could be burned up(count for nothing) but he will still be saved.

In MacArthurs view, my real assurance of salvation is my works for God and my Holy living, if I am not up to par there, I have no assurance.

This ideology permeates his study notes, now if you agree with that and believe MacArthur's representation of the Gospel is correct, than more power to you. I do not. Salvation is a free gift, not a gift exchange as Mac sees it(give ourselves to Christ to get the gift of salvation).

IFBReformer

 

[Paul33]

What we should question is someone who claims to be saved because he walked the aisle or said a prayer, and then never grows in the faith. He has no qualms whatever. He lives the same way he has always lived with no visible signs of repentance, fruit, sanctification, etc.

As to stalling in our walk with Christ. It happens. But while it is happening we know that it is happening and are uneasy about what is going on in our lives. We know we are grieving the Holy Spirit and are under the discipline of God our Father. We may act like we have it all together, but deep down inside we know that we are in the flesh and out of fellowship with God.

I haven't read anything from MacArthur, so I don't know what he is teaching. But if what you say is true, it sounds like he is overstating his case to challenge those with false assurance.

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Paul33:
What we should question is someone who claims to be saved because he walked the aisle or said a prayer, and then never grows in the faith. He has no qualms whatever. He lives the same way he has always lived with no visible signs of repentance, fruit, sanctification, etc.

As to stalling in our walk with Christ. It happens. But while it is happening we know that it is happening and are uneasy about what is going on in our lives. We know we are grieving the Holy Spirit and are under the discipline of God our Father. We may act like we have it all together, but deep down inside we know that we are in the flesh and out of fellowship with God.

I haven't read anything from MacArthur, so I don't know what he is teaching. But if what you say is true, it sounds like he is overstating his case to challenge those with false assurance.

I definitely don't think someone is saved simply because he says a prayer or walks an aisle. He is saved because he has placed his faith and trust in Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Having said that, Christians will obey their Lord to greater and lesser degrees, and some may have very little growth, because they do not use the new found freedom from the power of sin that Christ grants them at salvation.

The easiest way to show the difference is that MacArthur thinks all true Christians will be relatively successful in their walk with Christ - he does not believe in the possiblity of all ranges of Christians.

Where I believe true Christians come in all spiritual shapes and sizes, from a 1(being the least in growth) to a 10(being the best in growth). MacArthur would say all true Christians will be like between 7 and 10, there are no 1s or 2s in his view.

If we get in the business of saying all true Christians will do this or that, where does it end? I just say all true Christians will place their faith and trust in Christ as Savior and Lord, and will have a change in their heart - but it is not dependent on my examination of their works to show the validity of their salvation.

MacArthur has a whole generation of Christians questioning other Christians salvation.

if this person does not go to church, then he is probably not saved.

if this person does this or that sin - there is no way they could be saved.

We have Christians walking around with a laundry list validating other Christians salvation because of an attitude MacArthur fosters.

Now having said all that, I don't agree with the other side that tells people they are saved just because they walked an aisle or said a prayer.

I will always ask someone who is in doubt about their salvation, first whom did they and do they trust in?(belief is maintained by God, it can never be lost) A person may be in dumps - but down deep in their heart they will always believe, because they are sealed with the Holy Spirit.

I will then ask this person who doubts - if their sin troubles them, if they want to overcome it(through God's strenghth), if they want to be faithful to God. If they tell me yes, and only they know if they truly believe and feel these things, then they are saved.

While I find myself closer to the Free Grace side, I don't always agree with them on this.
I do believe their is a change and desire to please the Lord in an new believer. But some have difficulty acting on that desire, and they do not take advantage of the tools God gives us after we are saved.

But I will never ever tell someone that the only real assurance they have of their salvation is how righteous and obedient their life is toward Christ.

It is love of Christ that constrains us to live Godly, not fear or somehow having to prove the validity of our salvation.

IFBReformer