John MacArthur, please remove the plank from your eye

[durangodawood]

I have no problem with someone making money honestly. But wealth requires commonsense and wisdom. And a lot of shrewdness. I don't believe in writing checks because I have the money. There must be accountability and fiscal soundness. I can't stomach the waste.

For the sake of my sanity and peace of mind it's better for me to create a foundation to fund the projects I want to establish for the betterment of others. I have to be at the helm. My convictions don't align with most organizations. Nor are they spending their own money. Skin in the game changes your outlook.

I'm not looking for donors. When you accept outside resources you open a can of worms. That's another level of accountability.

~bella

Thats quite a task to set for yourself and I hope youre seeing the results in the world that youd like.

I'm not a terrific giver, for better or worse. And when I do I'm not ultra diligent. One group I've given to, in the form of gifts in the name of others is World Bicycle Relief | Global Bicycle Charity probably because I'm such a bicycle evangelist. Not the most efficient charity, but highly transparent, apparently.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

If Phil Johnson and others keep enabling John MacArthur, he's going to end up like Ravi Zacharias, dying in unrepentant sin.

John MacArthur's sin is the sin of hypocrisy, and the facts are out there for anyone with the eyes to see them. I prayed for Dr. MacArthur last night that he repents.

 

[bèlla]

Thats quite a task to set for yourself and I hope youre seeing the results in the world that youd like.

Not really. Philanthropy is a long-term process. The important thing is establishing the vision and your convictions and sticking with them. This was always the goal. But I don't like the charity model. I believe in self-sufficient organizations. Building the revenue upfront and funneling some to the entity is ideal. But it also generates its own income. So it isn't wholly dependent.

I'm not a terrific giver, for better or worse. And when I do I'm not ultra diligent. One group I've given to, in the form of gifts in the name of others is World Bicycle Relief | Global Bicycle Charity probably because I'm such a bicycle evangelist. Not the most efficient charity, but highly transparent, apparently.

You're a cycling fan too? We're twinning hard! That sounds like a neat organization. I'll check them out.

~bella

 

[rjs330]

Then why on Earth would Paul say in 2 Corinthians 7:1, “...let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” ?

Because that is what we should be doing. It is VITAL to note that acknowledging we still sin as believers is NOT giving believers permission to sin. As the verse you quotes says. Believers are to continually clease ourselves. And I John further clarifies that by stating that we are cleansed from unrighteousness when we ask for forgiveness for our sin.

NEVER NEVER does the Bible tell us in any way that it is okay to sin.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

If we believe in the Reformation principles of Solus Christus and Soli Deo gloria, we should be just as willing to point out institutional hypocrisy as Martin Luther was. It doesn't matter whether or not that church leader is on "our team." Ecclesia semper reformanda!

 

[FireDragon76]

Because that is what we should be doing. It is VITAL to note that acknowledging we still sin as believers is NOT giving believers permission to sin. As the verse you quotes says. Believers are to continually clease ourselves. And I John further clarifies that by stating that we are cleansed from unrighteousness when we ask for forgiveness for our sin.

NEVER NEVER does the Bible tell us in any way that it is okay to sin.

If it were possible to cleanse oneself, why would Jesus have to be a sacrifice?

 

[rjs330]

As a former Lutheran and somebody that delved alot into Luther:

Luther instructed that suicide victims should receive Christian burials. He believed the Church should show mercy towards suicide victims, since they were not acting from a sound mind. At the same time, it should be done in such a way as to not show approval for suicide.

Justification by faith alone was his central, controlling doctrine. Which means he did not believe that sin could separate the believer from God.

The Bible really is silent on this subject. No where does it say that if you commit suicide you are not saved. Not does it say the opposite. Christ will be the ultimate judge and I will leave it up to him to decide what happens to the person who commits suicide. Whatever he decides will be righteous and true.

I would rather focus on the people they left behind, for they are the ones that truly suffer.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Bible really is silent on this subject. No where does it say that if you commit suicide you are not saved. Not does it say the opposite. Christ will be the ultimate judge and I will leave it up to him to decide what happens to the person who commits suicide. Whatever he decides will be righteous and true.

I would rather focus on the people they left behind, for they are the ones that truly suffer.

That's fine. The question was, what did the Reformers believe... and they were surprisingly closer to how many modern, liberal mainline Protestants viewed the matter, than simply saying "it's a sin, therefore people go to Hell"... which actually was the Catholic response that many of them objected to, because it shifted the issue from faith in God's grace and mercy to obedience to law.

 

[rocknanchor]

Okay. This is not an example of suicide, , , Samson could not take down those pillars in the temple without God's Spirit, , , So it was ultimately God who decided to end Samson's life, , , So yeah, this is not example of suicide with God being in favor of it like you wish it to be.

Only partially right. Yes, God ultimately decides, just not always - solitarily. On the one hand,

But he who endures to the end shall be saved (Matthew 24:13)

A delicate care is at the forefront. On the other hand, there is no need to try and split hairs. Everyone knows God did assist, what some wish was not there in verse 30 was the same wish present when others are overcome by a problem when they set out to bring that thing to an end.

I'm in 'favor of it'? Why jump to such an impression of me while I'm simply bearing what the record states?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Just to show that I'm not a Calvinist fanboy, I have never liked John MacArthur. Other than his opinions on female teachers, I agree with most of what MacArthur has to say. But in terms of his lifestyle, does he practice what he preaches?

https://julieroys.com/prosperous-lifestyle-americas-anti-prosperity-gospel-preacher/

http://abrentdetwiler.squarespace.com/brentdetwilercom/phil-johnson-covers-up-john-macarthurs-extraordinary-compens.html

The above chart is not counting his other income streams, like from book royalties. Joel Osteen, on the other hand, who I disagree with on pretty much everything, receives no salary from his church:



I'm not coveting John MacArthur's money. I feel sorry for the members of his church for having to pay his extravagant salaries. I don't care how Joel Osteen makes his money, because it's not from the church coffers.







How can I have any respect for Todd Friel now, a man who promotes John MacArthur as if he were John Calvin himself?

How dare John MacArthur criticize John Piper for not accepting his cessationism, when Piper lives so modestly compared to him?



Perhaps MacArthur denies the reality of spiritual gifts because they are lacking in his own life.

If we believe in the Reformation principles of Solus Christus and Soli Deo gloria, we should be just as willing to point out institutional hypocrisy as Martin Luther was. It doesn't matter whether or not that church leader is on "our team."

Ecclesia semper reformanda!

Since John MacArthur isn't here to speak for and potentially defend himself - this entire thread amounts to gossip.

If something about his message while Pastoring seems wrong to you, address those specific points of Scripture he propounds on and discuss why you disagree - from Scripture - but don't attack the man and talk about his personal life behind his back.

The author of the article is guessing a lot, and has no earthly idea what MacArthur gives in charity, or even what his actual salary is... he's guessing based on certain assumptions. Did MacArthur come from a wealthy family? You don't know, maybe that home was an inheritance 40 years ago...

None of us can decide the details of a person's finances without knowing, from the horses mouth, what they actually are versus how much he gives both in taxes as well as charity as well as his actual (not hypothetical) income.

So... you can choose to live according to Scripture, or not. I disagree with MacArthur on a couple fairly major points of Scripture, but I'm not about to start making assumptions about his position before God on the day of Judgement and make all sorts of nasty allegations about his personal life which I know nothing of.

GOOD DAY.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Only partially right. Yes, God ultimately decides, just not always - solitarily. On the one hand,

But he who endures to the end shall be saved (Matthew 24:13)

A delicate care is at the forefront. On the other hand, there is no need to try and split hairs. Everyone knows God did assist, what some wish was not there in verse 30 was the same wish present when others are overcome by a problem when they set out to bring that thing to an end.

I'm in 'favor of it'? Why jump to such an impression of me while I'm simply bearing what the record states?

God is not subject to man’s laws. God is the giver and taker of life. Man is not the giver and taker of life. That is why when God told the Israelites to wipe out certain enemy nations it was not murder. Also, one more time. Samson was not selfishly taking own life because he had a pity party. Jesus laid down his life willingly to save mankind from their sins. Samson laid down his life to deliver his people from the bondage of the Philistines. So you are seeing something in the story that is just not there. Now, if Samson was in despair and he took his own life with a knife he would not be saving anyone. He would also not be asking God in such a thing, either. Do you see the difference? If not, I cannot help you.

 

[rocknanchor]

", , you are seeing something in the story that is just not there. Now, if Samson was in despair and he took his own life with a knife he would not be saving anyone. He would also not be asking God in such a thing, either. Do you see the difference? If not, I cannot help you.

Look, if you're going to unveil a correction; the dual choice to 'end it', then you are going to have to display something that speaks to Samson's choice, specifically. Not something propped to cojole your refusal.

What ever you do, don't re-read #90, as it would needlessly seek other misconceptions.

 

[Pommer]

Thank you…I love threads that pit Christians against one another, this is swell!

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Please keep in mind that my intent in this thread is not to say that I am a better person than John MacArthur. He just needs to repent of his hypocrisy and God will forgive him. I would feel sorry for him if he died without repenting.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

Please keep in mind that my intent in this thread is not to say that I am a better person than John MacArthur. He just needs to repent of his hypocrisy and God will forgive him. I would feel sorry for him if he died without repenting.

if we were talking about an actual sin, i would agree. But john having money is NOT a sin.
1 timothy 5:17-18 says those who preach are worthy of double honor, and that the labourer deserves his wages. John is simply being rewarded by God. Theres no hypocrisy here, only coveting by the OP.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

if we were talking about an actual sin, i would agree. But john having money is NOT a sin.
1 timothy 5:17-18 says those who preach are worthy of double honor, and that the labourer deserves his wages. John is simply being rewarded by God. Theres no hypocrisy here, only coveting by the OP.

I'm not coveting his wealth, and I'm only questioning how he's earned it, from various ministries and institutions, not just his church. If you compare how modestly John Piper lives compared to John MacArthur, you will see there is a difference.

John MacArthur's son is currently under investigation by the SEC. There's bound to be more information forthcoming about possible misconduct in the future.

What's already been revealed about how John MacArthur has acquired his wealth is concerning, especially since he hypocritically points the finger at others like Joel Osteen.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

Altruism is just as wrong as being greedy. The Bible speaks about how we, the flock, should treat our preachers. Altruism got shot down back in Luke 12.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Altruism is just as wrong as being greedy. The Bible speaks about how we, the flock, should treat our preachers. Altruism got shot down back in Luke 12.

More information is bound to come out. Let's wait and see what's uncovered by the SEC on the MacArthur family. I don't wish them any harm.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not coveting his wealth, and I'm only questioning how he's earned it, from various ministries and institutions, not just his church. If you compare how modestly John Piper lives compared to John MacArthur, you will see there is a difference.

John MacArthur's son is currently under investigation by the SEC. There's bound to be more information forthcoming about possible misconduct in the future.

What's already been revealed about how John MacArthur has acquired his wealth is concerning, especially since he hypocritically points the finger at others like Joel Osteen.

I suspect some of these ministries that are making alot of money are making money because of their political overtones as they act as de-facto front-groups for sociopolitical and ethnoreligious causes. As the increasingly narrow confluence of politics and religion continues in the US, it's only natural that people start pouring money into churches to enrich their own particular ethnoreligious group. And churches would be the perfect places for reactionaries and paleoconservatives to do that.

After all, one telling difference between John MacArthur and John Piper is the level of politicization. MacArthur focuses more on worldly politics, ethnoreligious concerns and perceived Christian obedience in light of that, whereas Piper is much more focused on a traditional Evangelical message, and he tries to avoid focusing too much on overtly political topics in light of that. MacArthur, on the other hand, is closer to a 19th century Fundamentalist in his conflating of nationalism, race, politics, and religion.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Please keep in mind that my intent in this thread is not to say that I am a better person than John MacArthur. He just needs to repent of his hypocrisy and God will forgive him. I would feel sorry for him if he died without repenting.

Haha... where in the Bible does it say a person is an automatic hypocrite just because they have some wealth?

Does MacArthur preach against it or call having wealth a sin? That would make him a hypocrite if he does indeed have money. . But I've never come across him saying anything of the sort if so...

I would like to point out that if your thinking of the parable of the wealthy young ruler Jesus spoke to in Scripture, that wasn't teaching against wealth perse, it was a teaching against a very common misconception at the time that if a man was wealthy he was blessed by God for his righteousness. Jesus was pointing out that the wealthy are no more righteous than the poor man not so materially blessed, and pointing to all of our need of a Savior. What is impossible for man, is indeed possible with God.