DaveW

MacArthur

299 posts in this topic

Because it was asked, and it is not appropriate to further pollute that thread.

 

5 hours ago, Bob Hutton said:

 

I would be interested to know why DaveW has warned against John Macarthur.  I don't agree with everything Dr Macarthur teaches but, as a general principle, his ministry has been extremely helpful to me.

MacArthur promotes:

  • multiple bible (per)versions.
  • Calvinism (and I don't care what name you put on it).
  • Progressive worship.
  • "Elder rule".
  • Universal church.

Although I wouldn't recommend going to his site, if you do, all these things are cleatly evident.

He does get some things right, but 90% of rat poison is good food - it is the 10% that is dangerous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Login or register for removal of this advertisement.

I agree with the 10% rat poison and have no intentions of listening to John MacArthur. But I would point out that "elders" of New Testament churches is plural, and "elder rule" is biblical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

I agree with the 10% rat poison and have no intentions of listening to John MacArthur. But I would point out that "elders" of New Testament churches is plural, and "elder rule" is biblical.

No argument, but they way it is presented by MacArthur is unbiblical.

heartstrings likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastjav390 said:

You are also wrong about the "universal church". 

No I am not. I read it this morning on their website.

They do not call it that, but they teach it.

Just like I don't think you will find the name "Calvin" on their website, they are absolutely Calvinist.

Look, I am not here to rag on MacArthur specifically, but yhe question was asked specifically of me about my general warning.

You can argue about individual points all you like, the guy needs to be taken VERY CAREFULLY, if you want to bother to listen to anything at all from him.

You do what you like.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, if Bro. Dave will not "rag on MacArthur" I will. I will also disagree with Bro. Dave where he said that MacArthur needs to be taken very carefully. I don't think he should be "taken" at all. Mac Arthur is and promotes Community Church. I mean this in the sense of a denomination, not something like a Community Baptist church.

He is not Baptist and I would discourage any Baptist brethren from reading after him at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, personally Jim I would only take MacArthur to the Rubbish bin, but some here appear determined to defend him and accept him, and hence my warning to be careful IF THEY ARE SO DETERMINED. 

Rat poison will get em if they insist on trying to eat the good bits.

wretched and Brother Stafford like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DaveW said:

Well, personally Jim I would only take MacArthur to the Rubbish bin, but some here appear determined to defend him and accept him, and hence my warning to be careful IF THEY ARE SO DETERMINED. 

Rat poison will get em if they insist on trying to eat the good bits.

I don't agree with Dr Macarthur on everything but to liken his ministry to "rat poison" is not only extreme but also failing to evince a Christlike spirit.  If you wish to disagree with this dear brother's ministry, and use reasoned arguments in doing so, then that is fine.  However, lashing out with vituperative abuse demeans yourself and the whole concept of the body of Christ.  It also contradicts our Saviour's command to love one another.

I look forward to a sensible and reasoned discussion of Dr Macarthur's ministry.  If you present objections in a responsible manner then I will attempt to answer them.

With sincere regards and much love in Christ,

Bob 

Invicta likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bob Hutton said:

I don't agree with Dr Macarthur on everything but to liken his ministry to "rat poison" is not only extreme but also failing to evince a Christlike spirit.  If you wish to disagree with this dear brother's ministry, and use reasoned arguments in doing so, then that is fine.  However, lashing out with vituperative abuse demeans yourself and the whole concept of the body of Christ.  It also contradicts our Saviour's command to love one another.

I look forward to a sensible and reasoned discussion of Dr Macarthur's ministry.  If you present objections in a responsible manner then I will attempt to answer them.

With sincere regards and much love in Christ,

Bob 

This is another way to put it.

Mat 7:15

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

 

2 Corinthians 11:

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

Bob, Calvinism is a doctrine of devils. It makes God out to be a selfish monster. In that sense it is blasphemy against God as it presents the nature and character of God as such. "and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man" the Bible says.  People like MacArthur present it as something glorious and good when it is really disgusting. Even LOST people can see it for what it is. So, yeah, when a man teaches all kinds of "good" stuff while pushing evil, I would compare it to rat poison. Jesus just called it being a wolf in sheep clothing.

 

Edited by heartstrings
DaveW and Brother Stafford like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble reading Bob?

Or are you only interested bagging me?

16 hours ago, DaveW said:

Because it was asked, and it is not appropriate to further pollute that thread.

 

MacArthur promotes:

  • multiple bible (per)versions.
  • Calvinism (and I don't care what name you put on it).
  • Progressive worship.
  • "Elder rule".
  • Universal church.

Although I wouldn't recommend going to his site, if you do, all these things are cleatly evident.

He does get some things right, but 90% of rat poison is good food - it is the 10% that is dangerous.

 

How much false teaching warrants a warning in your eyes?

Hey, enjoy yourself, just chew carefully.

I gave my warning, noted some points - I'm done here I think.

Not interested in arguing.

Edited by DaveW
Brother Stafford likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

This is another way to put it.

Mat 7:15

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

 

2 Corinthians 11:

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

Bob, Calvinism is a doctrine of devils. It makes God out to be a selfish monster. In that sense it is blasphemy against God as it presents the nature and character of God as such. "and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man" the Bible says.  People like MacArthur present it as something glorious and good when it is really disgusting. Even LOST people can see it for what it is. So, yeah, when a man teaches all kinds of "good" stuff while pushing evil, I would compare it to rat poison. Jesus just called it being a wolf in sheep clothing.

 

Whether or not Calvinism is a "doctrine of devils" is  a matter of opinion and interpretation.  There are many preachers who hold to a form of Calvinistic theology, are they all guilty of spreading poison?

I also believe that you will win more people to agree with you if you show a little more Christlikeness, and adopt a less abusive manner. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Calvinism (indeed, I did for many years until I read the Bible properly) but a little more of a reasoned attitude would be helpful to yourself and others.

With kind regards to you, dear brother,

Bob

33 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Trouble reading Bob?

Or are you only interested bagging me?

How much false teaching warrants a warning in your eyes?

Hey, enjoy yourself, just chew carefully.

I gave my warning, noted some points - I'm done here I think.

Not interested in arguing.

No, dear brother, I'm not interested in "bagging" you but simply encourage you to be a little less angry, and a little more gentle as Christ is to all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rat poison is an apt illustration in this instance. I have used this illustration in teaching about avoiding false teaching.

 Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 
 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 
 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

The Apostle Paul had no problem addressing things of this nature.

 Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 
 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The issue of following after, or reading after men of doubtful beliefs is exactly why I warned about this practice in another thread. It is dangerous and unnecessary to expose ourselves to teaching outside of our local churches.
 1Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

As for " failing to evince a Christlike spirit ", I would submit this:  Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 

It would seem that a "Christ like spirit" would include warning against heresy. There are many times in Scripture that Christ was less than "gentle" when the issue was false teaching and teachers.

DaveW likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Rat poison is an apt illustration in this instance. I have used this illustration in teaching about avoiding false teaching.

 Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 
 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 
 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

The Apostle Paul had no problem addressing things of this nature.

 Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 
 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The issue of following after, or reading after men of doubtful beliefs is exactly why I warned about this practice in another thread. It is dangerous and necessary to expose ourselves to teaching outside of our local churches.
 1Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

As for " failing to evince a Christlike spirit ", I would submit this:  Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 

It would seem that a "Christ like spirit" would include warning against heresy. There are many times in Scripture that Christ was less than "gentle" when the issue was false teaching and teachers.

What you describe as "false teaching" other believers would call the truth.  None of us has a monopoly on truth when it comes to secondary issues, and Calvinism comes into that category.  Over the centuries much harm has been done to the cause of Christ by believers being angry with each other, and even abusive to each other, over secondary issues.

By all means enter into meaningful debate about these matters, but please avoid descending to the level of playground name calling.  Remember we are called to love one another.

kind regards to you, dear brother,

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro. bob, our local churches do have a monopoly on the truth as evidence by my Scripture quote above. As for name calling, where do you see any name calling in my reply?

Jesus and Paul recorded what I quoted as Scripture, are you saying that Scripture that calls false teaching what it is, is name calling?

Another observation: in your reply you seem to be categorizing Calvinism as "the truth", since you said that it falls into the category of "the truth".

When it comes to the truth, I see no "secondary" truths, it is either truth or it is a lie, there is no middle ground between the truth and a lie.

Let's get one other thing straight, I am not angry, neither is it anger when a person calls out false teaching. It just seems to me that liberals in general, (not pointing to you) will categorize any argument against their view as "anger". This is especially true in the political realm.

You have indicated on your profile that you are Independent Baptist. Your argument in this thread in defense of MacArthur and Calvinism is not consistent with Independent Baptist belief and teaching. How do you reconcile the two opposites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bro. bob, our local churches do have a monopoly on the truth as evidence by my Scripture quote above. As for name calling, where do you see any name calling in my reply?

Jesus and Paul recorded what I quoted as Scripture, are you saying that Scripture that calls false teaching what it is, is name calling?

Another observation: in your reply you seem to be categorizing Calvinism as "the truth", since you said that it falls into the category of "the truth".

When it comes to the truth, I see no "secondary" truths, it is either truth or it is a lie, there is no middle ground between the truth and a lie.

Let's get one other thing straight, I am not angry, neither is it anger when a person calls out false teaching. It just seems to me that liberals in general, (not pointing to you) will categorize any argument against their view as "anger". This is especially true in the political realm.

You have indicated on your profile that you are Independent Baptist. Your argument in this thread in defense of MacArthur and Calvinism is not consistent with Independent Baptist belief and teaching. How do you reconcile the two opposites?

Bless you, dear brother for taking the trouble to reply.

I'm sure there are independent Baptist churches that hold to Calvinism.  It really is a secondary issue and not worth getting worked up over.

Kind regards

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Hutton said:

Whether or not Calvinism is a "doctrine of devils" is  a matter of opinion and interpretation.  There are many preachers who hold to a form of Calvinistic theology, are they all guilty of spreading poison?

I also believe that you will win more people to agree with you if you show a little more Christlikeness, and adopt a less abusive manner. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Calvinism (indeed, I did for many years until I read the Bible properly) but a little more of a reasoned attitude would be helpful to yourself and others.

With kind regards to you, dear brother,

Bob

No, dear brother, I'm not interested in "bagging" you but simply encourage you to be a little less angry, and a little more gentle as Christ is to all of us.

No worries. I said my peace on this. You have a nice day, friend, and welcome to Online Baptist. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calvinism is not a "secondary issue" at all.

In Calvinism salvation is through the choice of God - in the Bible salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is another Gospel.

And no small issue at all.

I have always found it interesting to see what other false doctrines people will accept in their zeal to follow Calvinism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DaveW said:

Calvinism is not a "secondary issue" at all.

In Calvinism salvation is through the choice of God - in the Bible salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is another Gospel.

And no small issue at all.

I have always found it interesting to see what other false doctrines people will accept in their zeal to follow Calvinism.

 

I have a question for you: if calvinism is not a secondary issue (and I believe that it is) does that mean that C H Spurgeon was a heretic?

Come to that - was William Carey (a Baptist missionary to India) a heretic?

Was Dr D M Lloyd-Jones a heretic? (He was a Welsh preacher who ministered in London for many years, and highly respected among British evangelicals).

Are John Piper and Steve Lawson heretics?

Was B B Warfield a heretic?  Was Martin Luther (who wrote "The Bondage of the Will) a heretic?

Once you start saying that calvinism is not a secondary issue, you are on very dangerous ground.

Think very carefully, dear brother, before you make sweeping statements.

Kind regards

Bob

Edited by Bob Hutton
Spelled the word heretic wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calvinism IS NOT A SECONDARY ISSUE.

 I prefer to align with the Bible than what you say about various people.

 

 

wretched and heartstrings like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, it's the long-stated view of DaveW, Heartstrings and probably several others on this forum that if a person comes to believe the Calvinist/reformed interpretation of scripture before they are saved, then they cannot be saved while continuing to believe it, since it is a false Gospel. Or in other words a Calvinist is not a Christian unless it so happens that the Calvinist got saved before believing in Calvinism, or they think they believe reformed doctrine but don't really. If you look back over the forum's history you will see mammoth threads discussing this.

And among those here who don't think reformed beliefs are incompatible with salvation, a large number still think that reformed beliefs are incompatible with the label 'IFB'.

This forum used to have a page called 'Doctrinal Statement of this board' with a statement of faith on it, but I can't find it anymore. That statement specifically rejected some of the reformed distinctives, including limited atonement. Even so, back when this forum was busy it used to tolerate a much more 'eclectic' mix of people who called themselves IFB. Not so among the dozen or so who still post here, or so it seems.

Those are just some of my own observations from having been on here a long time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alimantado said:

Bob, it's the long-stated view of DaveW, Heartstrings and probably several others on this forum that if a person comes to believe the Calvinist/reformed interpretation of scripture before they are saved, then they cannot be saved while continuing to believe it, since it is a false Gospel. Or in other words a Calvinist is not a Christian unless it so happens that the Calvinist got saved before believing in Calvinism, or they think they believe reformed doctrine but don't really. If you look back over the forum's history you will see mammoth threads discussing this.

And among those here who don't think reformed beliefs are incompatible with salvation, a large number still think that reformed beliefs are incompatible with the label 'IFB'.

This forum used to have a page called 'Doctrinal Statement of this board' with a statement of faith on it, but I can't find it anymore. That statement specifically rejected some of the reformed distinctives, including limited atonement. Even so, back when this forum was busy it used to tolerate a much more 'eclectic' mix of people who called themselves IFB. Not so among the dozen or so who still post here, or so it seems.

Those are just some of my own observations from having been on here a long time...

I thank you for the attempt, but your representation of my position is in error.

heartstrings likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here's the last time I remember you summing it up, Dave:

On 06/07/2014 at 11:25 PM, DaveW said:

If I may explain my position - I believe that anyone who holds to Calvinism as Calvin intended is not trusting in the shed blood of Christ for salvation - their salvation is based on the choice of God. This is unbiblical, for the Bible never says that we are saved by God's choice, but it constantly says we are saved by the precious blood of the Lamb of God.

However, I believe many people who "align with Calvin" do not really understand what Calvin believed and taught. These people might be saved because they believe the surface words without understanding the depth of Calvinism.

I think that there are people in various false churches who are saved in spite of what their church teaches, not because of it.

I have known people who defend Calvin who I would think are saved (I can not know another man's heart for certain), in spite of their defence of the system which teaches salvation not by faith, but by God's choice.
I have also known people who defend Calvin who, by their actions and attitudes, I would think are definitely not saved (again, I can not know another man's heart but the indicators??????? ).

But I have met many people who claim the name of Christ who appear by their life and actions to not know the Saviour.
That is not the exclusive domain of Calvin.

I don't see where my representation of that is wrong. Heartstrings has written very similar in the past but I can't remember where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had it ready to fire, why did you not just post it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DaveW said:

If you had it ready to fire, why did you not just post it up?

Because I was also talking about other things in that post, not just you, and I wanted to be concise for Bob's sake. And since I wasn't trying to misrepresent you, I didn't think you'd disagree with what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, now that you have disagreed, I've gone and posted up your own words, so no harm no foul eh? I'll just have to accept that I don't have a clue what you're saying--since you've told me I'm wrong. Hopefully Bob will understand better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now