John McArthur, cultic or not?

[Elijah]

He has made a number of unbiblical doctrines. What do you think of him?

[Fledge]

I like John MacArthur. I see him as a man of God that desires nothing but the truth. I've not heard him say anything unbiblical.
But, I'll be honest, if you name some unbiblical doctrine he is pushing, and reference them thoroughly so I can look it up, I'd be more than open to consider it.

[Brandan Kraft]

MacArthur teaches dispensationalism - yet he is a Calvinist. I have a hard time swallowing his dispensational teachings (I won't) - but I don't believe he is cultic.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Elijah
He has made a number of unbiblical doctrines. What do you think of him?

what unbiblical doctrines are you referring to?

[GreekPrincess]

I'd be interested too. I use the MacArthur study bible and I do love it.

[Fledge]

Let's not forget that a doctrine, teaching, idea, whatever that we simpy disagree with doesn't necessarily make it cultic, unbiblical, or heretical.
What DOES make it so, is when the teaching flies in the face of the whole of scripture.
For example, to say that Jesus is not God goes against the clear teaching of scripture. To say that we should strictly worship (go to church) on Saturday only, and not Sunday, although strongly leaning to the legalistic side of things, isn't necessarily unbiblical or heretical or cultic or anything. But I still disagree with it.

Does that make any sense at all, or am I just babbling?

[countrymouse]

Fledge, I don't think you're just babbling.

I don't use McArthur's study Bible, because I don't like his dispensationalist leanings. I think dispensationalism is bad theology, but I'd stop short of calling it heresy. Just confusion. And it isn't all bad; dispensationalism has served at least one good purpose, imo, in reminding us that the Christian's relationship with God is personal as well as corporate. What I mean is that as individual believers, even though we are in relationship with God as members of the covenant community of believers, we each also know Him personally and individually. That, I think, gets overemphasized in dispensationlism, yet the Church needed to be reminded.

-cm

[Bill]

So take it with a grain of salt... Apparently at one time he denied the eternal sonship of Christ, but he switched his views, and unfortunately I don't have any sources to back that up. Has anyone else heard that? In addition, I don't want this to be misunderstood as an attack, I just wanted to possibly shed some light on why he might be considered cultic.

Sincerely,
Bill

[Fledge]

There was one issue a few years ago in which John MacArthur was accused of saying that the blood of Christ wasn't important (or something to that effect). When, what MacArthur DID say was something like "It is the DEATH of Jesus which bough our freedom and the blood was a symbol of that."
I don't remember the whole issue, nor the exact quotes, so I probably just totally messed it all up. MacArthur never denied saying the point in question, but he did explain himself and decide it best to change his wording to clarify himself a little better next time.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Bill
Apparently at one time he denied the eternal sonship of Christ, but he switched his views, and unfortunately I don't have any sources to back that up. Has anyone else heard that?

yes that is correct. i think he was actually "kicked out" of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA) for it. here's the excerpt from this article also found here straight from the horse's mouth so to speak:

Still, controversy continued to swirl around my views on "incarnational sonship," prompting me to reexamine and rethink the pertinent biblical texts. Through that study I have gained a new appreciation for the significance and the complexity of this issue. More important, my views on the matter have changed. Here are two major reasons for my change of opinion:

1. I am now convinced that the title "Son of God" when applied to Christ in Scripture always speaks of His essential deity and absolute equality with God, not His voluntary subordination. The Jewish leaders of Jesus' time understood this perfectly. John 5:18 says they sought the death penalty against Jesus, charging Him with blasphemy "because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

In that culture, a dignitary's adult son was deemed equal in stature and privilege with his father. The same deference demanded by a king was afforded to his adult son. The son was, after all, of the very same essence as his father, heir to all the father's rights and privileges—and therefore equal in every significant regard. So when Jesus was called "Son of God," it was understood categorically by all as a title of deity, making Him equal with God and (more significantly) of the same essence as the Father. That is precisely why the Jewish leaders regarded the title "Son of God" as high blasphemy.

If Jesus' sonship signifies His deity and utter equality with the Father, it cannot be a title that pertains only to His incarnation. In fact, the main gist of what is meant by "sonship" (and certainly this would include Jesus' divine essence) must pertain to the eternal attributes of Christ, not merely the humanity He assumed.

2. It is now my conviction that the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones ("this day have I begotten thee"), the context of Psalm 2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal.

[disciple]

Originally posted by disciple
i think he was actually "kicked out" of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA) for it.

i think another reason he was "kicked out" was because he taught that the Christian does not have two natures. i do not think he has recanted on this one. more info on that here. here is a quote from here:

Salvation is not a matter of improvement or perfection of what has previously existed. It is total transformation…. At the new birth a person becomes "a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor. 5: 17). It is not simply that he receives something new but that he becomes someone new… The new nature is not added to the old nature but replaces it. The transformed person is a completely new "I." Biblical terminology, then, does not say that a Christian has two different natures. He has but one nature, the new nature in Christ. The old self dies and the new self lives; they do not coexist. It is not a remaining old nature but the remaining garment of sinful flesh that causes Christians to sin. The Christian is a single new person, a totally new creation, not a spiritual schizophrenic…. The believer as a total person is transformed but not yet wholly perfect. He has residing sin but no longer reigning sin. He is no longer the old man corrupted but is now the new man: created in righteousness and holiness, awaiting full salvation. [The MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Ephesians, p. 164.]

The relation of the old self and the new self has been much disputed. Many hold that at salvation believers receive a new self but also keep the old self. Salvation thus becomes addition, not transformation Such a view, however, is not precisely consistent with biblical teaching. At salvation the old self was done away with. [He then cites 2 Cor. 5: 17 and Rom. 6:6.] Salvation is transformation – the old self is gone, replaced by the new self.[The MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Colossians and Philemon, p. 148.]

[Brandan Kraft]

I would agree with MacArthur on that point... Good find Doug! Thanks for researching this....

I don't believe a Christian has two natures. I do believe there is a struggle with the flesh, however, that does not mean I am a man comprised of two distinct and antithetical natures... I am a new creation in Christ.

This falls in line with our discussion on the Rom. 7 man!

[disciple]

Originally posted by kermie
I would agree with MacArthur on that point... Good find Doug! Thanks for researching this....

I don't believe a Christian has two natures. I do believe there is a struggle with the flesh, however, that does not mean I am a man comprised of two distinct and antithetical natures... I am a new creation in Christ.

This falls in line with our discussion on the Rom. 7 man!

yeah if this makes someone cultic or heretical, then i guess i'm cultic and heretical!

[countrymouse]

And you can add me to that list!

Still having to do battle with the flesh does not make us, by nature, carnal, or of dual nature. Interesting that MacArthur should take that position, since the idea of "carnal Christians" came from dispensationalism, unless I am mistaken.

-cm

[disciple]

Originally posted by countrymouse
Interesting that MacArthur should take that position, since the idea of "carnal Christians" came from dispensationalism, unless I am mistaken.

actually i don't think it came out of dispensationalism per se but out of the Keswick convention [1875] (which had a lot of dispensationalists attending) if i'm not mistaken. it was further popularized among followers of LS Chafer [who was a dispensationalist who founded Dallas Theological Seminary] who wrote "He That is Spiritual" which falls in line with the philosophy of those who started the Keswick Convention.

For More Info
http://www.rgwitty.com/hisofkes.html
http://33.1911encyclopedia.org/K/KE/...CONVENTION.htm
http://www.rgwitty.org/
http://store.yahoo.net/rgwitty/index.html

[disciple]

here is some info on chafer's link to Keswick.

here is a review of "He That is Spiritual" by B.B. Warfield. actually i have a book that i'm yet to read by B.B. Warfield called "Studies in Perfectionism" which addresses this very issue i believe. i think it's a compilation of his writings against Keswickianism (if you can call it that).

[disciple]

here's another article.

this article details the connection with DL Moody.

[disciple]

Originally posted by disciple
actually i don't think it came out of dispensationalism per se but out of the Keswick convention [1875] (which had a lot of dispensationalists attending) if i'm not mistaken.

actually, after reading the documents i provided the Keswick philosophy was brought over from England to America by DL Moody and thus spread to such teachers as RA Torrey and LS Chafer. the ideas became popularized in dispensationalist circles by its "canonization" by CI Scofield in the Scofield Bible and the writings of LS Chafer (especially in "He That is Spiritual"). so from reading the documents it seems that the culprit is DL Moody and its link to dispensationalism just seems coincidental (it was not a result of the system of dispensationalism...it just so happened that the leaders that propogated dispensationalism also bought the Keswick teachings and it spread like gangrene along with dispensationalism). interesting indeed!

here's a quote about it:

Thirdly, Moody influenced many dispensationalists (and, more broadly, fundamentalists) by introducing them to the Keswick holiness teaching. When Moody brought Fredrick B. Meyer to Northfield (probably in 1891), a strenuous protest was raised. Many of the Niagara conference men, who were speakers at Northfield, had taken great pains to oppose the Oberlin perfectionism of Charles Finney and Asa Mahan, and Meyer had to distinguish his teaching from it. The Keswick movement, begun through meetings in Keswick, England in 1873, under the domination of H. W. Webb Peploe, clearly departed from Methodist perfectionism. While rejecting the Wesleyan doctrine of the eradication of the sinful nature, the Keswick teachers also rejected the traditional view that one's sinful nature was merely suppressed by Christ's righteousness. This, they felt, led to constant conflict with sin and even tolerance of it as normal. In its place, the Keswick teachers posited a two-stage concept of the Christian life: the "carnal Christian" and the "spiritual Christian." Moving from one to the other required an act of faith, or "consecration." It was described as "absolute surrender" or as "yielding" and was always conceived of as a distinct crisis experience which brought in "the victorious life." Moody claimed to have undergone an intense second experience in 1871 and urged Torrey to "preach on the baptism with the Holy Ghost," and it appears Torrey took his advice. Other dispensationalists continued to promote the Keswick doctrines. In 1913 Charles Trumbull began an "American Keswick" conference; in his biography of C. I. Scofield, Trumbull and the famous dispensationalist are pictured together as "Paul and Timothy," indicating the close relationship between the two movements. More importantly, Scofield more or less canonized these Keswick doctrines in his Reference Bible. To dispensationalists, who believe that the Church Age was the unique age of the Spirit, this teaching has a special attraction. Moreover, while premillennialism abandons an optimistic estimate of the conquering power of the Holy Spirit throughout society, this Keswick doctrine promises personal "victory" in the Holy Spirit.

[Fredman]

I actually work for John MacArthur, and I would be very curious as to what heretical doctrines Elijah has in mind. Surely John isn't as heretical as denying the eternal security of the believer?

Fred

[disciple]

Originally posted by Fredman
I actually work for John MacArthur, and I would be very curious as to what heretical doctrines Elijah has in mind. Surely John isn't as heretical as denying the eternal security of the believer?

Fred

yeah i wondered the same thing but since elijah is not responding we cannot know what he was referring to. i would assume though that it may have something to do with what has been discussed in the thread by others. but it could be a slew of other things if elijah has a problem with some particular idiosyncrasy of macarthur or his theology.