I recently received some email concerning a recent "Grace to You" program. The national radio program is hosted by John MacArthur. He can often be heard spewing false anti-catholic teachings. I don't know what he said this time because I stopped listening to his program in June of 2005 after MacArthur used the death of Pope John Paul as a fund raising drive for his ministry. In a shameless pursuit of money MacArthur claimed he had a "mandate from God" to declare that Catholics are not Christians and the "doctrinal conflict between Catholics and evangelicals is neither superficial nor negotiable".
MacArthur is a typical bible thumping, divisive, self proclaimed pastor. He does not know the truth and therefore can not possibly teach it.
What MacArthur fails to realize is that without the Catholic faith there would be no Christianity at all. For even the Scripture that MacArthur reads is a result of the faithful safeguarding and protection of the Catholic church throughout the ages.
With all the pain and evil in the world, I find it curious that MacArthur would choose to "save" people out of the Catholic church. Unless of course MacArthur's true goal is to lead all people away from true Christianity.
MacArthur is one of the best false teachers out there. His whole argument is based on his claim the God's declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals. This is a clever mixture of truth and falsehood. Nowhere does scripture proclaim that it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.
We agree that there is one written and inspired, "God-breathed" revelation. As for one basis of truth this truth is not limited to the Bible, but also includes prophetic and apostolic proclamation and oral tradition, as well as teaching not included in the Bible itself, as seen in the following biblical passages (RSV):
Mark 4:33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them . . .In other words, by implication, many parables are not recorded in Scripture.
Mark 6:34 . . . he began to teach them many things.None of these "many things" are recorded here.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.Perhaps these many things were spoken during His post-Resurrection appearances alluded to in Acts 1:2-3 (see far below). Very few of these teachings are recorded, and those which are contain only minimal detail.
John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.
John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
I could go on for hours about this. For those who are MacArthur fans, you are following a false teacher. For those of you who were offend by MacArthur's words, I suggest you do what I did and stop listening to the man.
34 comments:
A flase teacher is one who lies about the truths of Scripture. Can you give an example of John MacArthur lying about something from the Word?
A false teacher is also one who teaches false things.
But I will entertain your question.
MacArthur writes in his book "Reckless Faith":
"All who call themselves Christian should agree that there is a body of doctrine that is non-negotiable." Yes, but he does not get to decide what those are.
Since there are fundamental articles that exist, but they (MacArthur and company) do not know what they are, serious error can and is easily taught in regards to an unknown fundamental article.
Being that they do not know fundamental articles, they can easily regard it as a "secondary" issue, not fundamental, and find themselves either believing the lie or allowing others to believe the lie, and thus denying a fundamental article of the faith that is "necessary for salvation."
What does Jesus say is "necessary" for salvation? The answer is found in John 8:31-32.
If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
It is "the truth" that makes us free not some of the truth. MacArthur diverts people away from the truth. He sells his own custom truth.
I could go on about his belief in the fear of God, MacArthur's teaching on forgiveness, and his lies on what Catholics really believe but I think my archived posts cover most of that.
Still, you haven't given any evidence of his abusing Scriptures. John MacArthur and Grace To You have a large online presence so evidence shouldn't be hard to find.
I'm not saying this to defend him, I'm asking for proof of his Scriptural abuse because too many people make accusations online and don't back it up with proof, and when Christians do that it sets a bad example.
Also, if he's no good, I want to know for my own benefit.
What time is John MacArthur on, I'm interested in hearing what he says.
I get fed up with people trashing the Catholic religion, Catholics never say negative things about other sects of christianity, these guys need to listen to EWTN sometimes. If people that degrade Catholicism were true christians, they wouldn't be doing such things in the first place, and second, they need to get their facts straight before saying things.
"Catholics never say negative things about other sects of christianity"
You've never listened to Roman Catholic traditionalists, have you? I've heard Roman Catholics in leadership positions say that people who have never heard of Christ have a better chance of being saved than "Prots," as they call us. I've heard Roman Catholics in leadership positions say that no Protestant churches have the Holy Spirit. I've had a Roman Catholic in a leadership position tell me personally that if I was really a Christian, I would be Catholic. Those positions exist on all sides of the camp, so lets not pretend it doesn't so as to claim the moral high ground, shall we?
The bible I use is a MacArthur Study Bible. Thus far, I have found very little wrong with his theology.
Anon: You can listen on demand here: http://www.wordfm.com/Ministries/Grace_to_You/
Mark: You are correct. Is not hard to prove MacArthur is inncorectly teaching Scripture. I'm limited on space here but I'll pick a few examples.
First let me say there are many things the MacArthur gets right. That's what makes him so dangerous. He believes that good works are a necessary. He declares the theology and practice of Charismatics and Pentecostals regarding the "gifts of the Spirit" are incorrect. He speaks against the "prosperity gospel" and "seeker-friendly" movement.
Yet as you look at some of his teachings MacArthur strays from truth.
MacArthur's teaching on the blood of Christ. MacArthur's position is the Blood of Jesus itself does not save us, the Blood is SYMBOLIC of death.
"We need to keep in mind that the blood was a SYMBOL. If Christ's own physical blood, in itself, does not cleanse from sin, how much less did the physical blood of animals" (From MacArthur's commentary on Hebrews. Moody Bible Institute)
That's what MacArthur says, but what does the Bible say?
We are "justified by his blood" (Rom. 5:9). "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. . . " (Eph. 1:7). We "are made nigh by the blood of Christ" (Eph. 2:13). "We have redemption through his blood" (Col. 1: 14), and he "made peace through the blood of his cross" (Col. 1:20).
MacArthur's position on the Blood of Christ is a heresy. Blood is NOT merely symbolic for death when we are speaking of Christ's Atonement.
In December 1989, the Bible Broadcasting Network terminated Dr. MacArthur's "Grace to You" program. In explaining that step, BBN president Lowell Davey referred to MacArthur's teachings on "Lordship Salvation," "Hyper-Calvinism," and the blood of Christ. He called these teachings "confusing." In a letter dated Jan. 15, 1990 Davey cited a "drift by Dr. MacArthur to a theological position that we could not adhere to" and said his series on election "convinced us that the direction of 'Grace to You' was toward Hyper-Calvinism..."
Feel free to look more into that if you like.
MacArthur seeks to "save" people who have already accpeted Christ and convert them to his own teachings which are not biblical.
John McArthur
You need to set the record straight with your listeners of "Grace to You" ,WORD FM.
I hope you realize that your statements on Catholicism offend WORD radio's Catholic listeners.
You continue to send an invalid and biased message to your listeners that Catholics worship saints and angels. You need to be accurate in portraying Catholic Church history
and to understand the Catholic teaching on the communion of saints and
the mystical body of Christ.
St. Paul asked Christians to pray for him. Was he practicing idolatry ?
In fact-- I challenge you to find any reference to idol or image worship in official Catholic Church documents. As you seek ther truth - do not confuse worship with honor and veneration. Catholics are totally committed to the First Commandment
I will continue to look to WORD radio for the truth.
Will I find it in "Grace to You"?
God bless,
Donald Jordan
Steubenville, OH
To the Unseen One--Where did you hear Catholics bashing other beliefs, was it on the radio or TV?
I'm sure that there are such Catholics just as there are such Non-Catholic bashers, it just needs to stop, we all need to act like Christians, what kind of an example do we set to a Non-Christian.
This blog proves my point, it deals with Catholic vs. Non-Catholic issues, look at the responses compared to the other comments.
""We need to keep in mind that the blood was a SYMBOL. If Christ's own physical blood, in itself, does not cleanse from sin, how much less did the physical blood of animals" (From MacArthur's commentary on Hebrews. Moody Bible Institute)"
~I guess I'll have to buy my own copy to actually see it.
"In December 1989, the Bible Broadcasting Network terminated Dr. MacArthur's "Grace to You" program. In explaining that step, BBN president Lowell Davey referred to MacArthur's teachings on "Lordship Salvation," "Hyper-Calvinism," and the blood of Christ. He called these teachings "confusing." '
~Confusing doesn't equal false. Heck, I find a lot of things in the Bible confusing at times! :)
"In a letter dated Jan. 15, 1990 Davey cited a "drift by Dr. MacArthur to a theological position that we could not adhere to" and said his series on election "convinced us that the direction of 'Grace to You' was toward Hyper-Calvinism..."'
~In other words, he said "we disagree" but did NOT say the beliefs were unbiblical.
Sorry but you haven't linked to a single bit of evidence and what you've quoted isn't proof. As far as the blood comment, I agree that with just the quote you give it could be a problem, and since you haven't linked to the source, a whole lot of people who read this will never know the whole story.
For all I know he was explaining that the blood doesn't have a mind of it's own and is only sufficient because it is the blood of Christ but I can't know that from what's been given.
It's like the link you give in your linkroll that declares him a false teacher. The same site also totally denounces the Roman Catholic Church with terrible vitriole.
Which do I believe? How do I say "some is/some isn't"?
So far, not proof. If MacArthur is anti-Catholic then say anti-catholic, but so far you've offered no proof that his teachigns are unbiblical.
So, about the blood, it is just as I thought. Which is what happens when we look and think below the surface.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm
Gotta remember the differences in wiriting styles employed by the penners of Scripture. To say "saved by the shedding of His blood" is accurate, but not the complete explanation. I'll make that clear with one, simple question:
If Christ had cut his finger on a sharp stone or other object before is crucifiction, would that have been sufficient to save us from our Sin?
The salvation, the sacrifice, came with His death. Yes, we are certainly saved by His blood, but it was the blood shed IN HIS DEATH, not just the spilling of His blood.
If that were the case, when He was flogged, He could have stopped then, no? ;)
I stopped listening to WordFM after five pm. because a few years ago I heard a couple of men (I don't remember who they were now) say some untruths about the beliefs of the Catholic Church and it was during Lent, they were actually making fun and laughing about the Catholics,which I thought was totally inappropriate and unprofessional to do at any time but especially during Lent, what a great example they set for Non-Christians.
It just needs to stop, we all need to act like Christians
Amen!
To answer your specific questions, the "no Holy Spirit in Protestant churches" was on the radio, the "Prots can't claim invincible ignorance and thus people who have never heard of Christ have a better chance of getting into heaven than they do" was on TV, and the "If you were really a Christian, you would be Catholic" was said to me in person.
Anon 4:30, I believe that was Marty Minto who said that, and as they say in France, he is "Le Gone."
Anon 1:13, Powerball rarely rails against Protestants, limiting his comments to specific people. In the comment section, some of us will occasionally expand the scope of the discussion, but on the EXTREMELY few occasions Powerball has crossed that line... in fact, I only remember one, he apologized.
If you want to see contention between Catholics and Protestants, visit the message board at Catholic.com or CARM.org.
Oh, and I am going to look those specific issues up in my MacArthur Study Bible tonight.
I think we need to wrap up the hostility and contention among Catholics and Non-Catholics, its not Christian like and its childish, we need to pray so that these bridges will be gaped not argue among ourselves. Its Lent people, lets make amends.
I will say on last thing on this post. Believe what you want to believe. I would expect every person to truly believe they are part of the true church. That goes for Mormons, Wiccians, Christians, etc.
If anyone speaks against what I have accepted as truth, I say they are wrong and therefore speaking falsely. Anyone is free to disagree.
I don't think we should shy away from a respectful debate if we all truly seek truth. Yet, I'm sure if I told you what I really believe, many people would be offended. I'm not out to please you. I'm not out to convince you. That's not my job. If asked, I will answer honestly. I'm sorry if my answers offend you. I'm sorry if anyone feels I don't have enough proof to back up my beliefs. I respectfully disagree.
This is nothing new. Everyone thinks they are correct yet Scripture reminds us all:
1 Cor 10:1-6, 10-12
I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters,
that our ancestors were all under the cloud
and all passed through the sea,
and all of them were baptized into Moses
in the cloud and in the sea.
All ate the same spiritual food,
and all drank the same spiritual drink,
for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them,
and the rock was the Christ.
Yet God was not pleased with most of them,
for they were struck down in the desert.
These things happened as examples for us,
so that we might not desire evil things, as they did.
Do not grumble as some of them did,
and suffered death by the destroyer.
These things happened to them as an example,
and they have been written down as a warning to us,
upon whom the end of the ages has come.
Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure
should take care not to fall.
Way to go Powerball! Well said.
Not well said. No proof. No comment on counter evidence. It's not enough to say "I said so". None of the Apostles did that and they didn't teach us to do that. I'm not offended if that's what anyone is thinking, I just won't take hearsay as proof.
Opinions are opinions, but facts speak for themselves.
I don't think anyone was using heresay as proof, Powerball was simply reminding us of what scripture says,
Has anyone checked the other blogs, there are no responses, maybe a few have one, this blog has the most with 19, just to prove my point, no one responds unless it deals with a Catholic vs. Non-Catholic issue, I think thats sad.
Happy reading:
http://www.gnbcbible.com/johnmacarthur.htm
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/warning-johnmacarthur.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/macarthur-blood.htm
http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/false_prophets/JOHN%20MACARTHUR%20False%20Prophecies.pdf
Nothing not yet countered. These odd people keep bringing up the same argument about the blood comment, and you have yet to mention that you've read John MacArthurs own explanation for which I provided a link. Have you? What points about his response do you differ on? I'd like to know that you read it and are providing a reasoned response rather than merely passing on what others have written. That you are truly engaging this issue. To help me understand where you are coming from in what you understand from Scripture, please respond to these:
Since according to the arguments presented, it was only the blood that saved, why did Jesus have to die?
What do YOU understand Lordship Salvation to be?
Its Lent people, can't we try to focus on something that we can agree on for a change, talk about the true meaning of the Lenten season.
Ahh. I just typed a whole response and lost it. Divine intervention?
Let's try it again...
Lent is the perfect time to discuss why Jesus had to die.
If you look at the Covenant God formed with Israel, you will see the curses that Israel would inherit for failing to live up to the curses. This is detailed in Deuteronomy, chapter 28.
Israel would be exiled, and would die (among other curses). The exile had happened. The only way out of the covenant would be for one of the parties to die. (Think of the marriage covenant between man and woman. Til death do you part.) So, according to the curses, Israel would have to die, because God certainly could not die...............
Or could he?
Jesus came, took on our sins, took on our exile, and took on our death. The penalty for sin is death. This freed Israel from the Mosaic Covenant and allowed it to form a New Covenant with God.
I was not planning on a Lordship Salvation debate. In this area I tend to AGREE with McArthur. But since I was asked, here is MY understanding of it.
The Lordship view expressly states the necessity of acknowledging Christ as the Lord and Master of one’s life in the act of receiving Him as Savior.
Once you accept Jesus as your savior, will you naturally accept Him as your Lord as well, meaning you will attempt (perhaps pitifully) to obey and do good works.
I don't believe all you have to do is say the sinners pray and you are saved. That may be the begining but not the end.
"Works" require you to surrender your whole life, future,ambitions, relationships, possessions, and everything to God. Yet how many of us really do this? I know I stuggle with it.
There are many people and yes even pastors and priests who claim to be Christians yet have not given it all to Christ.
If you are wondering if I have read MacArthur's books, yes I have read a few.
In his book "The Gospel According to Jesus" MacArthur writes:
"This new gospel has spawned a generation of professing Christians whose behavior often is indistinguishable from the rebellion of the unregenerate. Recent statistics reveal that 1.6 billion people world-wide are considered Christians. A well-publicized opinion poll indicated nearly a third of all Americans claim to be born again. Those figures surely represent millions who are tragically deceived. Theirs is a damning false assurance."
I could not agree more. If faith is based on easy-believism, it results in many who have a false assurance of salvation, as evidenced by the fact that their profession of faith has not changed their lives.
I don't propose to know who is saved and who is not. Still I do fear for those who are so self-assured prior to the judgemant.
I wasn't planning on debating the Lordship question either, that's why I just asked for your view on it, to understand that part of the discussion. Your description certainly fits with Scripture!
I actually wasn't wondering if you'd read his books, merely the linked explanation of the issue.
There is Biblical basis for self-assurance of salvation before the Final Judgement. Cheif being the evidence of the Holy Spirit. He is the seal of salvation, and certainly He wouldn't live within an unbeliever. Anyone who is in Christ IS a new creation. IS. There isn't any evidence of a transitional stage (hey, that finally came in handy! :) ) between saved and unsaved, so that provides another assurance. Charles Stanley wrote an effective explanation here: http://www.intouch.org/
myintouch/exploring/bible_says/
eternal_security/
salvation_149076.html
"I don't believe all you have to do is say the sinners pray and you are saved. That may be the begining but not the end."
I feel the same way about the prayer. The funny thing is, if you come to a trusting belief BEFORE saying the prayer, you're saved already. :)
Back to the blood though. If the blood by itself, could have saved us and paid the penalty for our Sin, why would Jesus have to die? You said it yourself. It was the penalty for our Sin. It was the blood, but it was the blood spilled through His sacrifice of life, not the blood by itself.
If MacArthur wants to nit-pick beliefs on his radio show why doesn't he question the beliefs of Mormons, J. Witnesses, etc.
hi, i stumbled upon this by accident, googling completely unrelated theological topics, but was pretty intrigued by the blog.
Just a couple of questions.. Mr powerball, your'e attack upon John Mcarthur is pretty strong, "typical bible thumping divisive selp proclaimed pastor". my first concern is "bible thumping", as you are suggesting he is in error because his theology doesn't line up with yours. furthermore, you are telling us with fierce certainty that he is a false teacher.
you have shown us no demonstration of your knowledge of the canonisation of scripture, historically examining the process by which the accepted canon of scripture came about, and why we trust the Word of God as authoritative and consider it to be the means in which we test all "prophetic and apostolic" proclamation, or why you disagree with it. Neither have you defined truth, and certainly not shown us why you are the person to define what is and isn't true. All you have told us is, that other teachings have been written/words proclaimed outside of the bible therefore the bible is not the whole truth.
Certainly extra-canonical writings serve an important part of our understanding of the history and context, perhaps even of the nature of God, but equally the process of deciding what is to be accepted as authoritative is complex, and jewish texts and rabbinical historians from the first century as well as historical writings from the inter-testamental period shed a lot of light on this issue. Do not forget - Deuteronomy 4:1 And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.” Now before i'm accused of lifting scripture out of context, my focus here is if for the Israelites, not adding to or subracting from Gods authoritative written words was of utmost significance - so that you may keep the commandments! does not the same principal apply now, if God has spoken to us - has communicated with us in a way that is with out error, with absolute authority, isn't it so significant that we don't add to or take away from what he's said? any distortion of that can lead us to a false perception of who God is and what he requires of us.
So the issue of what is considered authoritative scripture shouldn't be treated lightly. Now you have a problem that macarthur is presenting a "distorted" version of God, but your testing point of authority is non-definate. just as you argue that the bible is not the whole truth in itself, but we have other means of seeing what is true, surely macarthur could say the same thing, that his convictions are based on prophetic insight, or oral tradition, or jewish literature.
Certainly God is above and beyond the bible, that he still speaks, and he speaks truth. However us people, the people who recieve that truth corrupt it to an extent because it has to come through our inability to communicate Gods fullness and perfection. We can not claim to bring inerrant prophetic words(you can call this my oppinion, and fairly, but think about the implications of it), etc, yet scripture does claim its authority. Where you stand upon the authority of scripture is important, and shouldn't be trivialised, as it influences any subsequent views you have related to God and truth.
Your argument sounds more like you have taken personal offence over a difference of oppinion, but who is closer to "bible thumping" in the certitude and agression of their argument, Mcarthur is a respected bible expositor, why is your interpretation of the truth any more credible than his? furthermore who is being divisive here? You are actively telling people who listen to Macarther that they are being decieved. Thats a very very strong claim, based on such a small ammount of tenuous evidence from yourself. I certainly did not read your blog and think "unity". As for self proclaimed pastor, well i do not know about his background, but arent you self proclaiming your "correctness", and inadvertantly pushing towards relavitism? As someone who is suggesting that scripture does not convey Gods fully authorative truth, you are going to have a real hard time showing how your truth is objective.
As for your line that Mcarthur fails to realise that without the Catholic faith there would be no Christianity at all, well, in the nicest possible way, is deeply naive, and painfully inaccurate. I strongly reccomend looking into the history of the formation of the bible as we know it today, by that i mean the "protestant" accepted canon, as well as the apocryphal writings. I'm certainly not attacking catholicism here, i am not a catholic, though i have friends who are and have deep genuine relationships with God, i in know way wish to suggest that it is not possible. There certainly is a conflict over doctrine, and i don't believe it is superficial. though i dont want to be the one who would say catholics can't be saved, i dont agree with that. equally i dont want to say that mcarthur is a false teacher because of his convictions over one particular area of Christian doctrine, that is not central to salvation.
despite the issues i have raised, which i have not explained or expanded upon well, and i'm sure you will be able to dismiss what i have said, as you are entitled to, there is one slight problem. "He can often be heard spewing false anti-catholic teachings....I stopped listening to him in 2005". Surely to tell is in the manner you have done what macarthur is, is somewhat presumptuous as you haven't listened to him for two years. You say this is because you found him offensive, but i urge you not to repay the favour by attacking macarthur with "offensive" and unfair rhetoric. There is a distinction between testing error and judging out of self righteousness. I'm not going to accuse you of the latter, but remarks such as "He does not know the truth and therefore can not possibly teach it" do not help you, as they are gross generalisations based on speculation, it does a diservice to your credibility. you later say "i dont think we should shy away from respectful debate", I agree, but i see little consistency between that statement and your opening blog.
instead you've directed us to third party links of critiques from people also do not like him. However the issues raised for example on the gnbcbible website are issues of interpretation, and annoyance that he seems "confusing", written by someone calling himself and his comrades "fundamentalists", again, a bit of a non-term because fundamentalist what? that you believe in fundamental evangelical orthodoxy, fundamental church traditions? is it fair to say that this kind of pigeon holing of oneself into a tight corner and putting all defenses up means anyone who proposes a different view is in error.
i dont know you and i in no way wish to imply you do not care about or love the word of God. I just feel your point is at best sketchy and at worst out of line. I feel it is dangerous to be making such strong accusations based on what appears as a weak basis, and even if it was the case that we could all say that macarthur is deeply in error, taking a moment to remind our selves of matthew ch5 wouldn't do any harm right now, after all, blessed are the peacemakers. I hope my words don't offend you, and im sure i'v said things which probably do not come across as helpful, so i apologise in advance, its currently 12.45 am and i must sleep.
peace
Anon:
I would have contacted you directly but I have no way to do that so I will post an inadedqate repsonse here.You said much and there is no way to respond to it all here.
My opinions are just that. I in no way claim to know more than anyone. However, I put aside my opinions when it come to theology and defer to historical Church teaching.
Many people can recite Scripture and verse but do not understand or distort the meaning. Reading the Bible is just one of many steps in developing faith.
If a person teaches false things (ie. the Catholic church worships statues) then yes, I have no problem calling them a false teacher. In this paticular case I heard what MacArthur was teaching about the Catholic church and I can tell you (as a Catholic) he is wrong. Forget doctrine or Scripture for a moment. What he said I believe and do as a Catholic is outright false.
I don't really feel the need to prove my knowledge of anything in order to post something on my own blog. You are free to read back through 3 years of posts on faith and come to your own conclusion.
My "testing point" as you say is the Church that I believe directly decended from Peter and has taught the Word of God for over 2000 years. I know many disagree.
The links I provided were in reponse to readers who wanted to hear other objections.
As for my lack of listening to MacArthur's radio program, I still get his appeals by mail, I get email from my readers about him, I get CD's that he has produced sent to me for my opinion and from time to time I listen ot him on the web to remind myself why I don't listen to his radio show.
I do apprecaite you respectful manner and while I'm sure we would still disagree I do think the conversation should continue.
The problem remains the lack of evidence provided.
hello
thanks for your response, no certainly you dont have to prove your knowledge in anything on your own blog, i didnt mean for the remark to sound condescending as upon reading back what i wrote it didn't come across how it was intended as such, never the less my point was that i dont think its helpful to make broad general statements with out showing where your coming from biblically, and historically. any way, id like to continue this discussion, but when i have more time. until then,
regards
His teaching is dangeous
He caused a church split at Pleasant Valley Baptist Church in Camarillo, California.
I also discovered this blog by chance, while doing some research and "surfing" about other people's beliefs. In my travels today, one recurring thought seems to dominate -- we're all just struggling -- to find the truth, and to worship God the best way we know how. Do any of us know for absolute certainty that our own theology isn't somehow blemished; even just a little bit?
Powerball, this is your virtual home, which entitles you to arrange "the furniture" any way you want. But, I believe you've made a serious error in judgement to place John MacArthur in your link roll as a false teacher. He is a teacher -- and a flawed man -- but he is not falsely (i.e. purposely) misleading anyone. In all honesty, he could easily be considered one of the very best pastors and theologians of our time. Is that what's really bugging you? From the tone of your writings, I sense a certain degree of anger.
As you may have already guessed, I'm not Catholic. Nor will I ever be. After many years of studying, contemplating, and praying, I've discovered a simple truth -- Jesus Christ, without any religion, is the answer. And that's not to say many "good catholics" won't be sharing Heaven with me. I believe they will. You see, many truly devoted followers of Jesus can be found in the strangest places. Another secret? ...being thankful that many people are completely unaware of the foul doctrine "their church" espouses to.
I must say, the entire premise of your article has already been answered by Mark La Roi (above). He provided you a link that totally answered this "urban legend". Did you read it, by chance? Maybe you're unaware of who Phil Johnson is? He's a fellow pastor at MacArthur's Grace Community Church, and the editor for most of John's books. You could safely say he is Dr. MacArthur's "right hand man". And his response seems quite convincing.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm
Even so, maybe you would like to hear it from Dr. MacArthur himself? Here's another link to one of his sermons. Many, if not most of MacArthur's sermons and teachings can be found on BibleBB.com.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1904.htm
One thing seems very strange to me? In one of your earlier responses, you gave a list of links that you believe "proves your point". But these same sites (which you use as reference) are much more damaging to the theology behind Roman Catholicism than they ever could be to John MacArthur.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/hardnuts-catholicapolog.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/rccfbns.htm
http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/false_ch/iceberg.html
Note: I did not include any Catholic pages from one of the sites you've mentioned (www.jesus-is-savior.com) because it is a vile, hate-filled diatribe. Its attacks on almost every subject are so venomous that it's hard to believe someone wrote this seriously. No one should ever use this site -- with it's paranoid mixture of God and government conspiracies -- as a reference source!
Are you still searching? Maybe you're just wondering why protestant "bible thumpers" won't worship "the one true church" instead of Jesus? Most of it comes down do a simple Latin phrase, which I'm sure you're aware of -- Sola Scriptura -- scripture alone, is sufficient. This website (below) is not a definitive resource, but I thought you might appreciate another point of view about this.
http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-start.htm
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-start.htm
As for me, I'm not a "progressive Christian" (at least that's what they call themselves). Nor do I believe that all roads (churches) lead to the same destination. But I do see many types of believers who are very close to understanding each other's "non-essential" viewpoints. Ultimately, we should all receive "our just reward" in Heaven -- together. Only God can judge our hearts, eh?
And all the while, true believers (in the inerrancy of the Bible, as well as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are being distracted from our mission of "making disciples of all nations". While you're focused elsewhere -- criticizing a Godly pastor -- the "real" false teachers are running rampant -- and deceiving millions.
Check out this site, from a minister of the United Church of Christ.
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2004/06/homosexuality_a.html
Does John MacArthur still seem so bad?
Warm Regards,
Robert
Well yes he does but that's besides the point.
As for the link, there is a man who tells you up front what he believes. Anyone with the tiniest understanding of the Bible would reject his teaching. In a sense, MacArthur is more misleading. People becoem numb and don't understand what is real and what is not.
Post a Comment