• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The bad theology on this board

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You should think more highly of Mr. Wesley - one of the original open air preachers.

"I am well assured that I did far more good to my Lincolnshire parishioners by preaching three days on my father's tomb than I did by preaching three years in his pulpit." ... "To this day field preaching is a cross to me, but I know my commission and see no other way of preaching the gospel to every creature". ~John Wesley

“At four in the afternoon, I submitted to be more vile, and proclaimed in the highways the glad tidings of salvation, speaking from a little eminence in a ground adjoining to the city, to about three thousand people.”~Wesley

“It is no marvel that the devil does not love field preaching! Neither do I; I love a commodious room, a soft cushion, a handsome pulpit. But where is my zeal if I do not trample all these underfoot in order to save one more soul?” ~Wesley

“We allow, it is the work of God alone to justify, to sanctify, and to glorify; which three comprehend the whole of salvation.” ~Wesley
He would also though add, when we allow him to be able to do such!
 

padredurand

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
He would also though add, when we allow him to be able to do such!

Consider this, "“I believe justification by faith alone, as much as I believe there is a God…I have never varied from it, no, not a hair’s breadth from 1738 to this day.” -Journal, 1766

“Taking the word in a more particular sense, faith is a divine evidence and conviction, not only that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,’ but also that Christ ‘loved me, and gave himself for me.'” -The Scripture Way of Salvation
 

reformed_baptist

Member
Site Supporter
Do you see him allowing for a Christian to actually have a season where not walking with the Lord as he ought. maybe caught in a spiritual issue hard to deal with? And we still do have within us that old nature, for that is at war against the Holy spirit residing with in us, correct?

Good to converse with you again, Brother!

And you, however I note that you are still avoiding actually backing up your claim!

Present the evidence, properly cited from MacArthur's own works, that demonstrates what you say is, in fact, the case.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And you, however I note that you are still avoiding actually backing up your claim!

Present the evidence, properly cited from MacArthur's own works, that demonstrates what you say is, in fact, the case.
Are you aware of the glaring weakness of Y-1? He is not in the habit of providing specifics. He would rather lob charges with no supporting data. He quotes posts without addressing the contents also.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Are you aware of the glaring weakness of Y-1? He is not in the habit of providing specifics. He would rather lob charges with no supporting data. He quotes posts without addressing the contents also.
I habe done that, but you seem to always say that it is foolish, not good etc!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Consider this, "“I believe justification by faith alone, as much as I believe there is a God…I have never varied from it, no, not a hair’s breadth from 1738 to this day.” -Journal, 1766

“Taking the word in a more particular sense, faith is a divine evidence and conviction, not only that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,’ but also that Christ ‘loved me, and gave himself for me.'” -The Scripture Way of Salvation
he held that in the end, it is the will of the sinner enabled by grace to freely decide for Christ, correct?
 

reformed_baptist

Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sorry I want your interaction with MacArthur's works - relying on secondary sources that you simply link to (looked for after the claims were made no doubt) is not a demonstration that you have looked into the matter - rather it is a demonstration that you are simply repeating parrot fashion what we have heard.
Those were sources that I have used before , and have a group of them for treferences!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, rather that I will use botht he scriptures and external sources to cite to discuss things!
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I habe done that, but you seem to always say that it is foolish, not good etc!
You "habe" done that?

Yes, I say your posts are generally foolish.

You quote posts but do not interact with the content of them.

You do not provide specifics. You do no homework.

You ask the same questions repeatedly when answers have been given repeatedly.

These are just some of the complaints I have about your posts.

I think you can guess what other complaints I have along with many other posters here.
 

padredurand

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
he held that in the end, it is the will of the sinner enabled by grace to freely decide for Christ, correct?

That is not correct. Go back and read the quotes I provided.

Edited to add this from the previous page:

“We allow, it is the work of God alone to justify, to sanctify, and to glorify; which three comprehend the whole of salvation.” ~Wesley
 

reformed_baptist

Member
Site Supporter
No, rather that I will use botht he scriptures and external sources to cite to discuss things!

The problem is the lack of verification in the use of external sources - it suggests a lack of discernment and a certain careless in regards to truthfulness - what you actually mean is that if you can find that says what you want it to say you will use it.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I first realized MacArthur’s preference of indoctrination to his view rather than dealing honestly with the opposing position when he tackled Unlimited Atonement. Of the free-will view of “Unlimited Atonement”, MacArthur declares that the view “if taken to its logical conclusion, has hell full of people whose salvation was purchased by Christ on the cross. Therefore the lake of fire is filled with those damned people whose sin Christ fully atoned for by bearing their punishment under God’s wrath.” (MacArthur, 2 Peter and Jude Commentary, 70-73).

That is the logical conclusion.

What I would criticize in this statement would be the lack of distinguishing Hell as not having human inhabitants at this point, lol.

I would argue that the "Unlimited Atonement" of unlimited atonement people is neither unlimited nor actual atonement. The problem, of course, is that no one who holds the view of Unlimited Atonement (except perhaps for universal salvation people) hold it as MacArthur pretends they do. There is a difference in the defining (Unlimited Atonement, for them, does not mean actual atonement applied to individuals...I'd argue that their view of "unlimited atonement" is neither unlimited nor atonement…and sometimes it is not even in the context of penal substitution). So, while I agree with MacArthur’s position on the scope of the Atonement, I find his characterizations of the opposing view nauseating. It is carelessness to the point of dishonesty, which is not a Christian characteristic.

You might consider that MacArthur is, in this quote, focusing on the extreme end of UT. I am sure he, as we do, recognize the various inflections placed on any particular doctrine. If Christ's Sacrifice was actually atoning for every man and woman (as some will conclude, despite best efforts of teachers to nullify such a conclusion) then we see John's statement perfectly reasonable.

And I just have to say, Jon, that it is a bit conflicting for yourself to nullify Unlimited Atonement by saying "...the "Unlimited Atonement" of unlimited atonement people is neither unlimited nor actual atonement."

Better to clarify the position with, perhaps, a different name. The fact of the matter is that no matter how good the teacher, preacher, or evangelist, what is taught is going to be strained through the colander of the individual mind, and what comes through is often not what was taught by the teacher.

Another example can be found in his commentary on 2 John, where he provides a false choice to defend “whole world” as meaning “the elect”. There are comments that came out of his “Charismatic Chaos” speeches that are just as questionable. In all three cases, John MacArthur takes the opposing view and places it within his own context (and his own definitions) to argue against it.

Who doesn't? I too disagree with this position, where we see obvious statements referring to the world (meaning all men) taught as having to refer to the Elect. But...this is hardly something exclusive to MacArthur, and hardly a reason to justify that he is unfair to opposing views or that he is a "horrible Theologian," lol. If that is the case, and we can make that charge towards everyone. Because everyone is wrong on one position or another and the reason is usually due to the indoctrination undergone when one affiliates with a particular System of Theology, rather than simply Being Bible Students.

Present company excluded, of course...

;)

I myself find both Calvinsts and Arminians in grave error on these issues and the solution is very simple. So unless we can ourselves be fair and point out the error of all groups then we are just as guilty as the charge you lay against MacArthur.

Again, please don’t get me wrong. I do believe he is a talented preacher, and I regularly learn from his sermons. But he is a horrible theologian.

I have some problems with some of what he teaches as well, but as far as being a Theologian...I regularly laugh at some of the "great theologians" here who say...he isn't even a Theologian. The fact is that many who comfort themselves with a piece of paper on the wall are horribly ignorant of some pretty basic teachings of Scripture. And the reason is...indoctrination. And it is pride that will not allow them to even consider that what they have been taught could possibly be in error.

John does his homework. John does the necessary work. Far better than most of the teachers, preachers, and "theologians" in the public eye today.

So is there anything else in which John is unfair to opposing views? It may be your own position on this doctrine makes you a little sensitive to it. The best thing to do in regards to disagreeing with a teacher is to examine the doctrine itself, rather than the teacher. The former is a little more difficult.


God bless.

God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top