MacArthur on the State of Evangelical Christianity

[Steven Yeadon]

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...

Thank you Austin. Barna has done great work in addition to Lifeway on polling Believers. It paints a sorry picture of evangelicals too.

To me, the real problem we are seeing is how hard Moderates are pushing to define the church as fundamentally modern, misinterpreting scripture or ignoring it. Another part of which is abandoning biblical faith in search of Seekers. Ecumenicalism is another method of compromising the church. Rome is not Christian and many Mainliners aren't either. There is also the problem with Charismaticism, an unbiblical movement that adds to scripture with the so called Baptism of the Holy Spirit and modern apostles and prophets.

 

[Reynolds]

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

Well, you are talking about what he said.

 

[George Antonios]

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.

It's all one big fat moot point because it's all been mysteriously predestinated by an unchangeable mysterious decree from the mystery of eternity past. You can't change anything in Hindu Fatalism.

 

[Van]

Well, you are talking about what he said.

Sir, why not address the thread topic? I am trying, if you will allow, to talk about evangelism, where we present the good news to all people, just as Christ commanded.

 

[Reynolds]

Sir, why not address the thread topic? I am trying, if you will allow, to talk about evangelism, where we present the good news to all people, just as Christ commanded.

And MacArthur in some way disagrees with that?

 

[Van]

And MacArthur in some way disagrees with that?

Did I say Dr. MacArthur disagreed with presenting the gospel to all people as commanded by Christ. Why not address what I did say?

 

[Reynolds]

Did I say Dr. MacArthur disagreed with presenting the gospel to all people as commanded by Christ. Why not address what I did say?

I did. It's inferior to what Mac said that you were trying to correct.

 

[Van]

I did. It's inferior to what Mac said that you were trying to correct.

Well folks, now we know...

 

[Reynolds]

Well folks, now we know...

Yep. Mac got it right. His blood did not cleanse the non-elect.

 

[AustinC]

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

Really? Prideful much?

There are a few issues in which RC Sproul had a better position. I also see Piper being closer to the biblical positions on a few issues than MacArthur. (Mainly, MacArthur's dispensationalism is missing the mark.)

 

[AustinC]

Thank you Austin. Barna has done great work in addition to Lifeway on polling Believers. It paints a sorry picture of evangelicals too.

To me, the real problem we are seeing is how hard Moderates are pushing to define the church as fundamentally modern, misinterpreting scripture or ignoring it. Another part of which is abandoning biblical faith in search of Seekers. Ecumenicalism is another method of compromising the church. Rome is not Christian and many Mainliners aren't either. There is also the problem with Charismaticism, an unbiblical movement that adds to scripture with the so called Baptism of the Holy Spirit and modern apostles and prophets.

Agreed. Cultural interpretation, rather than observed interpretation of the text, is leading to assertions that are not accurate.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

"Is the Evangelical Movement Really "Evangelical"?
Written by John MacArthur | Oct 20, 2020
What denominational label would best describe the following person's religious beliefs?

He claims to be a committed, born-again Christian but isn't sure that Jesus is truly God incarnate. He isn't convinced that God has infallible knowledge of (much less sovereign control over) the future. He doesn't believe the Bible is truth without any mixture of error. He doesn't believe what the Bible says about how the universe was created. He doesn't believe people must acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior—or even know anything about him—in order to have God's favor. He doesn't believe Satan is literally real. He doesn't believe God is full of wrath against sin. And he certainly doesn't believe in eternal punishment. In fact, he doesn't particularly care for words like sin, atonement, repentance, expiation, or propitiation. He dismisses such terminology as useless religious jargon that fails to communicate anything to normal people. But in reality, what he despises most of all about those words is the underlying doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which he also doesn't believe in. He is convinced that God will forgive without demanding any payment for guilt."

I do not know of any conservative denomination that would claim this lost soul as a member. Sure MacArthur can use his imagination for better causes than this!

 

[Reynolds]

Really? Prideful much?

There are a few issues in which RC Sproul had a better position. I also see Piper being closer to the biblical positions on a few issues than MacArthur. (Mainly, MacArthur's dispensationalism is missing the mark.)

Have you ever seen Mac lose a debate?
He and D.J Kennedy owned/own every debate stage they set foot on. (Even when I disagree with them)
Mohler was a student of Kennedy and uses same debate style. He just lacks the intelligence or memory Kennedy had.(though he is much smarter than me)

 

[AustinC]

Have you ever seen Mac lose a debate?
He and D.J Kennedy owned/own every debate stage they set foot on. (Even when I disagree with them)
Mohler was a student of Kennedy and uses same debate style. He just lacks the intelligence or memory Kennedy had.(though he is much smarter than me)

Win/loss is in the eye of the observer. Therefore, I don't doubt you think MacArthur has never lost a debate.

MacArthur is dead wrong in regards to dispensationalism. In that area he has adopted a cultural view rather than a biblical view. Regarding soteriology, MacArthur is accurate in his understanding.

 

[Reynolds]

Win/loss is in the eye of the observer. Therefore, I don't doubt you think MacArthur has never lost a debate.

MacArthur is dead wrong in regards to dispensationalism. In that area he has adopted a cultural view rather than a biblical view. Regarding soteriology, MacArthur is accurate in his understanding.

And he is accurate on dispensationalism.
Surely you don't think there is no difference between The Age of Innocence and Today.
From my perspective I want to see him lose because I am not a Cal.

 

[AustinC]

And he is accurate on dispensationalism.
Surely you don't think there is no difference between The Age of Innocence and Today.
From my perspective I want to see him lose because I am not a Cal.

He's dead wrong on dispensationalism because dispensationalism is a man-made attempt to break up the Bible into sections rather than view the Bible as a smooth flow of covenants that fulfill the promise of God.

 

[Reynolds]

He's dead wrong on dispensationalism because dispensationalism is a man-made attempt to break up the Bible into sections rather than view the Bible as a smooth flow of covenants that fulfill the promise of God.

It's no such thing.

 

[AustinC]

It's no such thing.

Correct, dispensationalism is no such thing. It's a made-up breakdown of the Bible.

 

[Reynolds]

Correct, dispensationalism is no such thing. It's a made-up breakdown of the Bible.

No. It's a way of understanding The Bible.

 

[Van]

Yep. Mac got it right. His blood did not cleanse the non-elect.

Who said he did? You are posting, but who knows why....