MacArthur on the State of Evangelical Christianity

[Steven Yeadon]

I found this recent blog post by John MacArthur on the state of the evangelical movement.

Is the Evangelical Movement Really "Evangelical"?

A big question to me after reading it is, "Do evangelical churches need a new Reformation?" What can we as Believers do in a kind of brewing civil war inside the Faith? A fight against a more subtle enemy than the liberal Christianity that destroyed the Mainline churches.

 

[Revmitchell]

I found this recent blog post by John MacArthur on the state of the evangelical movement.

Is the Evangelical Movement Really "Evangelical"?

A big question to me after reading it is, "Do evangelical churches need a new Reformation?" What can we as Believers do in a kind of brewing civil war inside the Faith? A fight against a more subtle enemy than the liberal Christianity that destroyed the Mainline churches.

Cant happen. Not the same setting. Right now all that can happen is division. Sad as it is

 

[Reynolds]

I found this recent blog post by John MacArthur on the state of the evangelical movement.

Is the Evangelical Movement Really "Evangelical"?

A big question to me after reading it is, "Do evangelical churches need a new Reformation?" What can we as Believers do in a kind of brewing civil war inside the Faith? A fight against a more subtle enemy than the liberal Christianity that destroyed the Mainline churches.

MacArthur speaks "inconvenient truth."

 

[AustinC]

I found this recent blog post by John MacArthur on the state of the evangelical movement.

Is the Evangelical Movement Really "Evangelical"?

A big question to me after reading it is, "Do evangelical churches need a new Reformation?" What can we as Believers do in a kind of brewing civil war inside the Faith? A fight against a more subtle enemy than the liberal Christianity that destroyed the Mainline churches.

Most evangelical churches are just Roman Catholic without the sacraments...so, yes, a Reformation is needed.

 

[Van]

Within his article stressing the need to return to the actual gospel as found in scripture, Dr. MacArthur presented his understanding of that gospel. Lets take a look at some snippets from it, and see if it is biblically based.

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 penalty for the sins of his people, providing for them 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 resurrection for the sanctification and glorification of the elect, to bring 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.​

I would think the gospel wording should be changed to "...in full the ransom for all humankind, providing the means of forgiveness and eternal life.

Next, I would reword the second red section with "...providing redemption, sanctification, and glorification of the elect, bringing them safely into His heavenly presence."

Other than those two corrections, his presentation of the gospel is spot on, in my opinion.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Within his article stressing the need to return to the actual gospel as found in scripture, Dr. MacArthur presented his understanding of that gospel. Lets take a look at some snippets from it, and see if it is biblically based.

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 penalty for the sins of his people, providing for them 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 resurrection for the sanctification and glorification of the elect, to bring 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.​

I would think the gospel wording should be changed to "...in full the ransom for all humankind, providing the means of forgiveness and eternal life.

Next, I would reword the second red section with "...providing redemption, sanctification, and glorification of the elect, bringing them safely into His heavenly presence."

Other than those two corrections, his presentation of the gospel is spot on, in my opinion.

I agree. Before I go, please everyone, if you want to argue whether TULIP is right, please do so elsewhere so as not to derail this thread.

 

[Van]

I agree. Before I go, please everyone, if you want to argue whether TULIP is right, please do so elsewhere so as not to derail this thread.

This is a thread about drifting away from the biblical gospel. I simply altered the wording so that it matched scripture, and nothing I changed challenges the TULIP.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

This is a thread about drifting away from the biblical gospel. I simply altered the wording so that it matched scripture, and nothing I changed challenges the TULIP.

I am not criticisizing you. Please don't take it that way. I'm just trying to cut off a long and winding debate as usually happens on thed Baptist Board when this topic comes up.

 

[SavedByGrace]

yes, a Reformation is needed

as long as it not "Calvinistic"!

 

[AustinC]

as long as it not "Calvinistic"!

So... you like your Roman Catholicism without the sacraments...

 

[SavedByGrace]

So... you like your Roman Catholicism without the sacraments...

Christian without heresies!

 

[Van]

Dr. MacArthur said he is bound by scripture and reason. This is an important point. If Jesus is what He said He is, then we ought to respond rationally, and not put our collective heads in the sand. The idea that if something is so, then it follows that something else is also so, if reason is applied. For example if Jesus is Lord, then it follows that we should serve Him, otherwise He is not our Lord.

 

[AustinC]

Since Steve has bound us only to the text of MacArthur's statement, I quote his reference to a survey.

Recent surveys1 reveal that a large percentage of people who self-identify as "evangelical" do not understand even the most basic principles of gospel truth. In a recent poll of self-styled evangelicals, 52 percent said they reject the concept of absolute truth; 61 percent do not read the Bible daily; 75 percent believe people are basically good; 48 percent believe salvation can be earned by good works; 44 percent believe the Bible does not condemn abortion; 43 percent believe Jesus may have sinned; 78 percent believe Jesus is the first being created by God; 46 percent believe the Holy Spirit is a force rather than a Person; 40 percent believe lying is morally acceptable in certain circumstances; 34 percent accept same-sex marriage as consist with biblical teaching; 26 percent reject Scripture as God's Word; and 50 percent say church attendance is not necessary.

Most of those views are categorically incompatible with saving faith. In other words, many who self-identify as evangelicals are not believers at all.

Discuss...

 

[Van]

Another question, the gospel requires that we love God with all our hearts, minds and souls. But what kind of love, sacrificial love where we go out of our way in order to treat God well, to the best of our abilities? Or is that love simply relational, we do for Him because He does for us. Which view is the gospel?

 

[Reformed1689]

This is a thread about drifting away from the biblical gospel. I simply altered the wording so that it matched scripture, and nothing I changed challenges the TULIP.

The actual wording, perhaps, but we know your position and the intentions behind at least the first rewording.

 

[Reynolds]

Within his article stressing the need to return to the actual gospel as found in scripture, Dr. MacArthur presented his understanding of that gospel. Lets take a look at some snippets from it, and see if it is biblically based.

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 penalty for the sins of his people, providing for them 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 resurrection for the sanctification and glorification of the elect, to bring 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.​

I would think the gospel wording should be changed to "...in full the ransom for all humankind, providing the means of forgiveness and eternal life.

Next, I would reword the second red section with "...providing redemption, sanctification, and glorification of the elect, bringing them safely into His heavenly presence."

Other than those two corrections, his presentation of the gospel is spot on, in my opinion.

I think he got it right.
Want to debate him?
He never loses.

 

[Reynolds]

Dr. MacArthur said he is bound by scripture and reason. This is an important point. If Jesus is what He said He is, then we ought to respond rationally, and not put our collective heads in the sand. The idea that if something is so, then it follows that something else is also so, if reason is applied. For example if Jesus is Lord, then it follows that we should serve Him, otherwise He is not our Lord.

Might want to look at his Lordship Salvation materials. He addresses it ALL.

 

[Van]

The actual wording, perhaps, but we know your position and the intentions behind at least the first rewording.

Must be wonderful to be able to read minds and certify ulterior motives.

 

[Van]

I think he got it right.
Want to debate him?
He never loses.

Think what you will, Sir, but which version is found in scripture?

 

[Van]

Might want to look at his Lordship Salvation materials. He addresses it ALL.

I have no interest in what Dr. MacArthur "materials" say, only in presenting scripture accurately.