John McArthur, cultic or not?

[Robert R. Higby]

r4mdh2o
Bill, The reason I believe the first day is "24 hours" is because we know that later ones were. God created time and there is no evidence that the length of "and the evening and the morning were the # day" would be of different durations. I believe as I would guess you do that it didn't take God 24 hours to create anything on those particular days. He spoke and things were created. I also believe that the biological and geological evidence speaks to a literal, out of nothing creation. That said, I believe that someone who doesn't come to believe such, when confronted by the truth, is at least not qualified to teach and if they persist in their unbelief, open to the charge of being apostate.

And I will let that be the last word on the subject! I have no desire to debate this as I have never seen a forum on THIS particular topic where people can actually discuss an exegesis of the text without the presupposed dogmatics of one side or the other dominating the argument. So to me it is a waste of time.

Tomas, for the same reason, I'm sad to say that this is the one subject I cannot engage you on in this forum! Well, since we can engage all the rest, it is infinitely better than most.

[r4mdh2o]

Fredman,



Listen to today’s typical gospel presentation. You will hear sinners entreated with such phrases as “accept Jesus Christ as personal Savior”; “ask Jesus into your heart”; “invite Christ into your life”; or “make a decision for Christ.” You may be so accustomed to hearing those phrases that it will surprise you to learn that none of them is based on biblical terminology. They are the products of a diluted gospel. It is not the gospel according to Jesus. (from “A look at the issues”)



Notice how MacArthur disagrees with himself below.

What to do with Jesus Christ is a choice each person must make, but it is not just a momentary decision. It is a once-for-all verdict with ongoing implications and eternal consequences—the ultimate decision. Jesus himself stands at the crux of each person’s destiny and demands a deliberate choice of life or death, heaven or hell. Here, in the culmination of all he has said in the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord requires that each person choose between following the world on the easy, well-traveled road or following him on the difficult road. You will not find a plainer statement of the gospel according to Jesus anywhere in Scripture.

Here are two gates, the great and the small; two roads, the broad and the narrow; two destinations, life and destruction; and two crowds, the few and the many. The Lord also identifies two kinds of trees and their fruit, good and bad; two kinds of builders, wise and foolish; and two kinds of foundations, rock and sand (Matt. 7:13–27). The choices are clear-cut. He demands a decision. We all are at the crossroads, and each individual must choose which way he or she will go. (from “The way of salvation”)



My question is: Is this the point of the Sermon on the Mount? He didn't say Blaessed are you if you make yourself poor in spirit. He said blessed are the poor in spirit. Jesus is explaining the differences between the elect and reprobate. What MacArthur is expounding here is the “free offer”. I will admit that he is not consistent, at times he appears to propagate what is true, but then he turns around and offers contradictory teaching. He is double-minded! Here he is basing justification on human choice!!! The question is not what will we “do” with Jesus, but what has He done with us. The elect are poor in spirit, the reprobate are not. The elect are on the narrow road, the reprobate are on the wide road. Jesus is teaching the elect how to discern if they are in the faith. The elect hear Christ’s voice, they will not follow another, but they also are led astray at times. The disciples took their hand off the plow often. They went back fishing after Christ’s resurrection as well as earlier when the saw Jesus walking on the water and thought He was a ghost. It certainly sounds like they took their hand off the plow to me. Peter denied Christ with cursing three times! All the disciples promised not to desert him at his trial but all of them did! Matthew 26:33-35

“Peter answered and said to Him, “Even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble.”

Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”

Peter said to Him, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!”

And so said all the disciples.”

So what do I think Jesus’ point is then? NO ONE IS FIT FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN EXCEPT FOR ONE! That person is the LORD JESUS CHRIST and no other! The proper response to seeing the law fulfilled in the life and preaching of Christ is repentance and faith for the elect and arrogance, unbelief, and falsely thinking you have obeyed enough for the reprobate. MacArthur is double-minded, he is unable to reconcile what Jesus said with what Paul says later and because he doesn’t see how the two dovetail he is confused and confuses others. Jesus tells the rich young ruler to go sell all he has and give to the poor not because he needs to do more, but to show that he doesn’t love the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind and strength and has NOT kept the law as he just told Jesus he had. REMEMBER before this discussion the text says Jesus looked at the man and loved him. Does Jesus love anyone that he doesn’t save? I say NO. Finally, do I believe that the elect can live as they like and still get to heaven? Yes I do, because I believe God is as sovereign in sanctification as He is in justification. He has given us a new nature, the Holy Spirit, Christ is in heaven interceding for us according to His Father’s will. He has given us new desires and abilities that are greater than the flesh and WILL prevail over the world, the flesh, and the devil. All of the elect’s confidence is in Jesus Christ and none of it is in them. MacArthur is wrong in focusing on the commitment of men and not on the unshakeable promises of the Sovereign, Triune God who works ALL THINGS after the counsel of His will. Peter stumbled often, but his Lord picked him up and restored him. The reprobate stumble but are unable to get up because they have no one to save them, they are lost in their sins. The gospel is NOT what we do, but what Christ has done.


You acknowledge that no one can obey perfectly. Doesn’t that dampen the force of the demand for absolute surrender?
No one in the Old Testament obeyed Moses’ law perfectly, either, but that did not diminish the standard of perfection established by the law.

The whole point is that the gospel calls for a response to Christ that is humanly impossible. To reduce the demands of the gospel so that anyone can respond with a nod of the head or a raising of the hand is the essence of easy-believism.

“Then who can be saved?” (Matt. 19:25) is the right question to ask. “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (v. 26). Conversion to Christ is a supernatural, divinely wrought miracle. The response of faith is born in the believer’s heart through the gracious quickening work of God. That does not occur until we acknowledge (1) that he has a right to demand whatever he wishes from us, and (2) that our inability to respond with absolute obedience is only because of our own sinful wretchedness. (from the Q&A at the back of the book)


MacArthur needs to be precise about what he believes, here he clearly says that conversion is contingent on the spiritually dead acknowledging these two things. I do not believe in raising a hand or nod of the head either and I certainly don’t believe that any of MacArthur’s list of human works are any more efficacious than them.

[Robert R. Higby]

Well, r4mdh2o, you've got the gospel right! Infinitely more right than John MacArthur or John Piper.

What about a New Reformation based on the true gospel and the shedding of the sectarian spirit? Who will stand up for the implications of the gospel as related to the heresies of the last 2000 years? All historical dogmatics must be judged in the light of the NT kerygma; the nuclear waste of two millenniums must be rendered null and void by the authority of Christ in his Word.

[tomas1]

I have heard many times over the last few years that the Church is in need of a new reformation. This feeling is nearly universal among thinking Christians that I have had contact with. I think this must be what it felt like to be in Europe in the days just before Luther posted his 95 theses. So I’ve been thinking. What would we post on the door of the Church if we could? What would be the list of sins of the mainstream Church that need to be addressed in order for the Body to be what Christ wants it to be? My list would include.
1. The denial of salvation by Grace alone by the alter call and the sinners prayer method of evangelism
2. The denial of the Priesthood of the believer by the one Pastor method of Church governance
3. The general forsaking of the spiritual nature of the kingdom due to the mixing of church and state.
4. The separation between genuine believers in Christ based only on ethnic or denominational lines because of the thirst for personal power of leaders.
5. The denial of Sola Scripta by the addition of philosophical concepts like the natural immorality of the soul and the fall of Satan fable

What do you all Think ?

[Brandan Kraft]

I have heard many times over the last few years that the Church is in need of a new reformation. This feeling is nearly universal among thinking Christians that I have had contact with. I think this must be what it felt like to be in Europe in the days just before Luther posted his 95 theses. So I’ve been thinking. What would we post on the door of the Church if we could? What would be the list of sins of the mainstream Church that need to be addressed in order for the Body to be what Christ wants it to be? My list would include.
1. The denial of salvation by Grace alone by the alter call and the sinners prayer method of evangelism
2. The denial of the Priesthood of the believer by the one Pastor method of Church governance
3. The general forsaking of the spiritual nature of the kingdom due to the mixing of church and state.
4. The separation between genuine believers in Christ based only on ethnic or denominational lines because of the thirst for personal power of leaders.
5. The denial of Sola Scripta by the addition of philosophical concepts like the natural immorality of the soul and the fall of Satan fable

What do you all Think ?

Justification through faith alone.

[disciple]

I have heard many times over the last few years that the Church is in need of a new reformation. This feeling is nearly universal among thinking Christians that I have had contact with. I think this must be what it felt like to be in Europe in the days just before Luther posted his 95 theses. So I’ve been thinking. What would we post on the door of the Church if we could? What would be the list of sins of the mainstream Church that need to be addressed in order for the Body to be what Christ wants it to be? My list would include.
1. The denial of salvation by Grace alone by the alter call and the sinners prayer method of evangelism
2. The denial of the Priesthood of the believer by the one Pastor method of Church governance
3. The general forsaking of the spiritual nature of the kingdom due to the mixing of church and state.
4. The separation between genuine believers in Christ based only on ethnic or denominational lines because of the thirst for personal power of leaders.
5. The denial of Sola Scripta by the addition of philosophical concepts like the natural immorality of the soul and the fall of Satan fable

What do you all Think ?

• Secularization of the church (or the church and state integrated with political agenda in order to "christianize" the state)
• Undue emphasis on charismatic experiences
• Undue emphasis on end-times scenarios
• To add to number 2 is the tendency to centralize authority (e.g., creation of elaborate heirarchies) in order to streamline things (i.e., for pragmatics) [i'm currently taking a class in church history and it is very evident that this is a perennial problem]

[Skeuos Eleos]

One more I would add to the list that I have come across:

• Exclusion from the Breaking of Bread for various reasons such as not being a member of the church, not agreeing with every last word of a statement of faith, etc

Martin

[tomas1]

I hope you know I meant natural Immortality not Immorality of the soul. Chalk another one up to the public schools in the Ozarks.

[Robert R. Higby]

Amen to all of the above six and many more! Details to come soon.

[Robert R. Higby]

Ha! I was at the end of thread 6 at my last post; thanks to all for the further additions!

[Cyberfish]

Since the discussion has shifted to where more reformation is needed, then I guess everyone agrees that JMac, Piper, etc. are not a cult?

[Robert R. Higby]

I don't know if that consensus has been reached or not, Cyberfish. I really do not want to take the time to investigate MacArthur with the scrutinizing detail that we have investigated Piper. I have personally sat in Grace Community Church and listened to many of MacArthur's messages with blessing. But we have shown here that a number of his dogmatic positions are definitely gospel-denying in their implications. The issue in 'cult' status is whether enough heresy is present to nullify the true gospel; on that point I have not personally concluded John to be guilty. Nonetheless, he has a number of heresies to renounce if he is to be faithful to the Word of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I am starting a new thread to continue the New Reformation discussion.

[Cyberfish]

Hi Bill. That is kind of where I am at with all this too. I am in Minnesota, Pipermania is running wild around here. I am really concerned about some of the bad theology and some of the unquestioning allegence to these teachers, but I am not ready to write them off as cultists yet.

[r4mdh2o]

Mike, If teachers are corrupt on the Gospel consistently and do not respond to correction as Peter did and this has gone on for years like this run on sentence, then what does it take to define them as heretical? THE GOSPEL cannot be compromised, the Holy Spirit does not allow the elect to continually mess with it doe He? The Lord ministered to me through His word through Piper and MacArthur in the past, but when I saw what they were doing and their refusal to directly reply to these criticisms I eventually came to the conclusion that in some way I had put them up on some kind of pedestal that only the Lord Himself is fit to be on. Galatians is clear if anyone, even Paul himself or an angel from heaven adds anything to the Gospel, they are anathema which means damned. What more is there to say?

[countrymouse]

hey fred! welcome back. i read the article a while back as well and i thought it had some interesting points, but from my reading of macarthur's works and overall familiarity with his teaching, i just thought robbins betrayed a certain familiarity and understanding of what macarthur was actually saying. after reading that article and a few others where he attacked well known writers for various reasons i decided that robbins saw himself as the orthodoxy watchdog who had some theological bone to pick or axe to grind with just about everyone but himself.

i really don't understand why there doesn't seem to be an effort made to just dialogue with the individual before some scathing article is written to trash their character and ministry. i saw this same thing with many other controversies that have happened recently. it's almost as if people don't have the time to hash it out, so they decide what a person is saying without dialoguing with the person and proceed to write critical articles about their views. and they go back and forth anathematizing eachother ad infinitim ad naseum. it seems to me that this has happened with the Lordship controversies, various exchanges between calvinists and arminians, the controversy with the Wilsonites (accused of being new perspective), the ezzos and growing kids God's way, etc.

i'm taking a church history class right now and have been sickened at how quick people are to anathematize eachother and for the silliest things. we set ourselves up as the sole defenders and bastion of orthodoxy and thereby condemn everyone else who doesn't agree with us. one such example was the controversies concerning the two natures of Christ. if one emphasized His humanity or His deity in a way that didn't agree with their understanding, even though they all affirmed His full deity and humanity, they anathematized eachother. people were and still are all too willing to anathematize eachother just because they differ a little in respect to their understanding and articulation of the doctrines of Scripture. i think we need to finally learn something from the history of the church and stop being so sectarian and schismatic. it is no different today than it was back then. we still have the tendency to operate in the flesh and be schismatic because of our pride and reliance on ourselves. anyway, i'll step off of my soapbox now...

I'll join you on your soapbox! What causes this is envy and ambition, pure and simple (IMHO). It's at the root of all unnecessary divisions among Christians - somebody wanting to make a name for themselves, so they feel the need to trash others. It's the same stuff the apostle Paul had to put up with.

[r4mdh2o]

Country Mouse, In your view what are the essentials? From your personal info I see nothing to define them that I could agree with. I'm not the one who has made thousands and probably millions of dollars off books and most of the response I receive for disagreeing with MacArthur is scorn, not praise. I don't have a ghost writer and I attempt to answer any criticism I receive. I have no ivory tower to sit in. And finally tell me how MacArthur compares with the Apostle Paul? Paul certainly didn't speak out of both sides of his mouth about the Gospel. He was even accused of being an antinomian! Although those who try to keep some kind of law to prove their salvation are really those who are antinomian... they don't understand that the law, while holy and good, can only condemn and show us why we need the righteousness of Christ. And they themselves don't keep it either, only Christ could and did. Anyone that has been born of the Spirit desires to point to Christ and Christ alone. When they are reproved they respond because of the gracious work of the Spirit to guide them into ALL truth as the Lord Jesus prayed (for the elect) in John 17. Finally, CM, if errant teaching on the Gospel is not what we are to divide over, then there is NOTHING worth dividing over. Paul and David both wanted to be found in the righteousness of God (Christ) and not their own. They correctly understood the purpose of the law and responded that they had been found by the one who could deliver them from the law of sin and death - Jesus Christ (see Romans 7 and Psalm 71)

Because of Christ's grace alone and no striving of my own,
Michael Lyman

Religion:
Christian, United Methodist by membership, formerly Calvinistic and full preterist
Soteriological Position:
Other Eschatological Position:
Other Covenantal Position:
Other