MacArthur-ism

[JM]

What does John MacArthur teach? Is he a reformed baptist, a progressive dispensationalist or something new?

 

[Dave Taylor]

If you read his MacArthur Study Bible, you will find that his commentary notes are strongly classical pretrib dispensationalism; along the same vein as Hal Lindsay, Tim Lahaye, and other popular dispensationalists.

It is kinda funny though, in a sad kinda way, that if you look at MacArthur's Study Bible; and go to 2 Thessalonians chapter 2......you find the top 15% of the two pages dedicated to the scriptures; and the bottom 85% of the 2 pages dedicated by MacArthur to telling the reader how do re-interpret the scriptures above to fit his theory.

Gotta love the old Gideon KJV bibles....no commentary; just the unadulterated Word of God.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

What does John MacArthur teach? Is he a reformed baptist, a progressive dispensationalist or something new?

John MacArthur is a 5-point Calvinist and a dispensationalist. MacArthur rejects the classic dispensational and ultradispensational views. He also distances himself from popular "speculative" dispensationalism, such as what Hal Lindsey would write and teach. His view is a minor variation of revised dispensationalism, such as what Ryrie and Pentecost would hold.

Some years ago MacArthur weighed in on the "Lordship Salvation" side of the debate with a polemical book. He rightly opposed Hodges' extreme (and minority) view, but wrongly associated others with Hodges' views.

Many people mistake John MacArthur to be a progressive dispensationalist. But MacArthur is not a progressive dispensationalist. A number of professors at The Master's Seminary, which MacArthur heads up, are critical of progressive dispensationalism (and of Dallas Theological Seminary in general). You may be getting Reformed Baptist from Phil Johnson, who considers himself a Reformed Baptist. Phil Johnson has a significant "web presence" and is also involved with MacArthur's ministry.


LDG

 

[Jerrysch]

If you read his MacArthur Study Bible, you will find that his commentary notes are strongly classical pretrib dispensationalism; along the same vein as Hal Lindsay, Tim Lahaye, and other popular dispensationalists.

It is kinda funny though, in a sad kinda way, that if you look at MacArthur's Study Bible; and go to 2 Thessalonians chapter 2......you find the top 15% of the two pages dedicated to the scriptures; and the bottom 85% of the 2 pages dedicated by MacArthur to telling the reader how do re-interpret the scriptures above to fit his theory.

Gotta love the old Gideon KJV bibles....no commentary; just the unadulterated Word of God.

Why would anyone buy a study Bible if they were not interested in reading the notes?

 

[Beoga]

MacArthur on his position on dispensationalism:

Question

What is dispensationalism? And what is your position, from Scripture, on the subject?

Answer

I will try to condense this because I don't want to get too bogged down. Dispensationalism is a system. It is a system that got, sort of, out of control. I think it started out with a right understanding. The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of dispensationalism was:

"That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews)."

Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that's all I want to take of it, that's where I am on that), dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.

I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren't in Scripture. For example, traditionally, dispensationalism says, "The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don't need to worry about it." When I went through the Sermon on the Mount in writing my commentary, as well, I pointed out how foolish that is.

So let me tell you, I have been accused through the years of being a "leaky dispensationalist" and I suppose I am. So let me take you down to where I believe dispensationalism (I don't use that term because it carries too much baggage), but let me take you down to what part of dispensationalism I affirm with all my heart--it is this: "That there is a real future for Israel," and that has nothing to do with some kind of extrabiblical system. That has nothing to do with some developed sort of grid placed over Scripture. The reason that I believe you have to have a future for Israel is because that is what God promised. And you see it in Jeremiah, in Jeremiah, chapter 30, right on to the 33rd chapter, there is a future for Israel--there is a new covenant. Ezekiel, chapter 37, the Valley of Dry Bones is going to come alive--right? God's going to raise them back up; God's going to put a heart of flesh in and take the stony heart out and give them His Spirit. And you have the promise of a kingdom to Israel; you have the promise of a king; a David's line; a Messiah; a throne in Jerusalem. You have the promise that there is going to be a real kingdom.

So my dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament--it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on them. The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an "amillennialist," or a "Covenant Theologian" that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel--an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.

My answer to them is simply this, "You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church--show me!" Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says "Israel" He means the "Church"? Where does it say that? That's where the burden of proof really lies. A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel. One way to understand that is to ask yourself a question. In the Old Testament . . . and if you wanted to get sort of a general sense of what the Old Testament is about, it's simply about this--it reveals God and His Law, and it tells what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and what's going to happen to you if you don't--and then it gives you a whole lot of illustrations of that--right? It reveals God and His Law and it tells you what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and if you don't--blessings and cursing.

Now, when Israel sinned, disobeyed God--what happened? Judgment, chastening, cursing, slaughter--was it literal? Yes. Was it Israel? Yes. So if Israel received all of the promised curses--literally--why would we assumed they would not receive the promised blessings literally, because some of those are in the same passages? And how can you say in this passage the cursing means literal Israel, but the blessings means the Church? There is no exegetical basis for that and you now have arbitrarily split the verse in half--you've given all the curses to Israel and all the blessing to the Church--on what basis exegetically?

I remember when I was in Jerusalem one time and we were in the convention center, right near the Knesset in Jerusalem, and I was there with Dr. Charles Feinberg, who was the keynote speaker, and David Ben-Gurion was there, who was the Premier of the Land of Israel at that time, and Teddy Kalik (sp.) who was the mayor of Jerusalem. We were sitting on the platform and an amillennialist had come to speak, it was the Jerusalem conference on prophecy, it was a tremendous event, and it was an amillennialist who got up to speak and he made the great announcement to David Ben-Gurion and to some of the Knesset members, and the mayor of Jerusalem, and all these Jewish dignitaries as well as the three thousand people that were there, that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament were being fulfilled in the Church. Now it is one thing to say that, but you don't need to take a trip to Jerusalem to say that. There would be no kingdom . . . he preached on Isaiah 9:6, "The government will be upon His shoulders" (9:6ff), and he said that means the government of your life, and he's talking about personal conversion here and so on and so forth. Well, I remember when that message was done, and I sat through it with Dr. Feinberg--Dr. Feinberg was, to put it mildly, "upset." And his opening line, because he gave the next address, was, "So we have come all the way to Jerusalem to tell you that you get all the curses but the Gentile Church gets all the blessings." And then he launched into a message about the promises of God.

If you take a literal approach to Scripture, then you cannot conclude anything other than that God has a future for Israel. What that means is that the Church is distinct from Israel, and when God is through with the Church, and takes the church to glory then He brings that time of Jacob's distress, that we read about earlier, purges, redeems Israel, and the kingdom comes.

I don't want to say any more than that about dispensationalism. I don't believe there are two different kinds of salvation. I don't believe there are two different covenants. I don't believe there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I don't believe the Sermon of the Mount is for some future age. I don't believe that you can hack up New Testament books--some for the Jews and some for the Church. I think that the only thing the Bible really holds up in that kind of system is that there is a future for Israel, and that's an exegetical issue.

It is probably more than you wanted to know, but it is very, very important, because it preserves the literal interpretation of Scripture. Listen folks, once you're not literal, then who's to say? Right? I mean, then why not just say, "Well, Israel really means 'left-handed Texans'--if it's not exegetical--if it's not in the text, it could mean 'Canadians'" How can you say, if you can't say what's literally there?
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-16-9.htm

Also, in his book The Gospel According to the Apostles he as an appendix dedicated to explaining dispensationalism from his pov.

 

[Free Gracer]

MacArthur is a main advocate of Lordship Salvation, which places unbiblical conditions on receiving the gift of eternal life.

 

[JM]

MacArthur is a main advocate of Lordship Salvation, which places unbiblical conditions on receiving the gift of eternal life.

It's my understanding that MacArthur teaches the believer (once saved) will have good works. That doesn't mean a believer won't stumble, but they will produce good works or be convicted by the Holy Spirit to do so. I agree with MacArthur on this issue, he's not saying you have to produce works to be saved, but works WILL in fact follow salvation.

peace

 

[Beoga]

MacArthur is a main advocate of Lordship Salvation, which places unbiblical conditions on receiving the gift of eternal life.

Care to explain what these "unbibical conditions for recieving the gift of eternal life" that MacArthur advocates. You have (at least) two books on which to cite from, The Gospel According to Jesus and The Gospel According to the Apostles. I highly recommend you give citations.

 

[nwmsugrad]

John MacArthur: page 93 Hard to Believe

"Salvation isn't the result of an intellectual exercise. It comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it's the fruit of actions, not intentions....The life we live, not the words we speak, determines our eternal destinity"

Is this Bibical?

 

[Beoga]

John MacArthur: page 93 Hard to Believe



Is this Bibical?

Here is the revision to this paragraph:

Don't believe anyone who says it's easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God's Son His life, and it'll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn't gained by reciting mere words. Saving faith transforms the heart, and that in turn transforms behavior. Faith's fruit is seen in actions, not intentions. There's no room for passive spectators: words without actions are empty and futile. Remember that what John saw in his vision of judgment was a Book of Life, not a book of Words or Book of Intellectual Musings. The life we live, not the words we speak, reveals whether our faith is authentic.

Here is a statement made by Phil Johnson on the revision that can be found here at Grace to You.

A Word of Clarification about Hard to Believe

One paragraph in Hard to Believe contains a glaring error that has the potential to mislead readers about the book's whole intent. The problematic passage is the opening paragraph of chapter 6 (page 93), which seems to suggest that salvation is the fruit of godly living. The truth is exactly the opposite.

The error was inadvertently introduced into the manuscript in the late stages of the editorial process, when (in order to simplify the book) four chapters were deleted from the original manuscript and one of the remaining chapters was severely abridged. John MacArthur approved the abridgments.

Apparently, however, in an effort to make a new transition that would smooth over the deletions, an editor involved in the process made significant revisions to the opening of chapter 6. Unfortunately, that change was not submitted to John for approval. We believe the error was an oversight, and not anyone's deliberate attempt to tamper with the book's theology. The result, however, severely muddled the message of the book.

A revision has been sent to the publisher for future editions of the book. In all subsequent printings, here is how the opening paragraph of chapter six will read (revisions are in bold):

Don't believe anyone who says it's easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God's Son His life, and it'll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn't gained by reciting mere words. Saving faith transforms the heart, and that in turn transforms behavior. Faith's fruit is seen in actions, not intentions. There's no room for passive spectators: words without actions are empty and futile. Remember that what John saw in his vision of judgment was a Book of Life, not a book of Words or Book of Intellectual Musings. The life we live, not the words we speak, reveals whether our faith is authentic.


Phil Johnson
Executive Director
Grace to You

 

[nwmsugrad]

Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God's Son His life, and it'll cost you the same thing.

Is this Biblical? How can something be free and cost me something at the same time?

 

[Beoga]

Is this Biblical? How can something be free and cost me something at the same time?

If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Lk. 14:26).

Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple (Lk. 14:27).

So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions (Lk. 14:33).

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Is this Biblical? How can something be free and cost me something at the same time?

In being redeemed, bought with the price of Christ's blood, out from under the bondage of sin and under the curse of sin, we then come to be bondservants of Christ.

As Paul is clear in Romans, either we are a slave to sin or a slave to Christ.

Bob Dylan said it as clear as Paul, "You gonna serve somebody. It might be the devil or it might be the Lord, but you gonna serve somebody."

 

[nwmsugrad]

If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Lk. 14:26).

Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple (Lk. 14:27).

So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions (Lk. 14:33).

Are you equating eternal salvation (justification) with discipleship? Is it possible to refuse to carry ones cross and follow after Christ and still have eternal life?

 

[Beoga]

Are you equating eternal salvation (justification) with discipleship? Is it possible to refuse to carry ones cross and follow after Christ and still have eternal life?

I am equating being a Christian with being a disciple.
One who has been granted eternal life will not refuse to carry one's cross and follow Christ.

 

[SoaringEagle]

The problem with the left field "Lordship Salvation" is that those teaching it do not "rightly divide the word of truth" and are unaware of the distinctions of the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace. Jesus first reveals Himself as the Lamb and Savior, (gospel of grace) and then reveals Himself as the Lion, Lord, and King (Gospel of the Kingdom). It's not that He isn't Lord at conversion, but reveals at a later time in the child of God's life of how LORD He is. It's only by His love that He captures His sheeps heart, and prepares them to further recieve His Lordship and begin to walk worthy of the calling and kingdom of God. Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, which deals with the Lordship of Christ, fruitfullness, and discipleship. There is to be divisions within the word of God, and discipleship and the Kingdom is the meat of the word, and before a child of God can recieve the meat, the must receive the milk. Milk before meat, but Lordship salvation teachers either don't realize that, or won't listen anyway.

Well, praise the Lord, be blessed everyone. SoaringEagle

 

[nwmsugrad]

One who has been granted eternal life will not refuse to carry one's cross and follow Christ.

John 12:42-43 (NASB95)
Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

Isn’t this an example of Christians who have eternal life but refuse to carry their cross for Christ

Many believers are unfaithful and refuse to follow Christ. They need to realize the consequences of their actions before it is too late. Since salvation is a free gift received by faith alone in Christ alone, it cannot be lost even if the recipient regularly denies their Lord.

2 Timothy 2:13 (NASB95)
If we are faithless (Unfaithful meaning we decide to deny Christ instead of enduring in good works), He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Christians who do not endure will experience the following consequences at the Judgment Seat of Christ which will last for all eternity:

1 Corinthians 3:15 (NASB95)
If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

The problem with the left field "Lordship Salvation" is that those teaching it do not "rightly divide the word of truth" and are unaware of the distinctions of the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace. Jesus first reveals Himself as the Lamb and Savior, (gospel of grace) and then reveals Himself as the Lion, Lord, and King (Gospel of the Kingdom). It's not that He isn't Lord at conversion, but reveals at a later time in the child of God's life of how LORD He is. It's only by His love that He captures His sheeps heart, and prepares them to further recieve His Lordship and begin to walk worthy of the calling and kingdom of God. Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, which deals with the Lordship of Christ, fruitfullness, and discipleship. There is to be divisions within the word of God, and discipleship and the Kingdom is the meat of the word, and before a child of God can recieve the meat, the must receive the milk. Milk before meat, but Lordship salvation teachers either don't realize that, or won't listen anyway.

Well, praise the Lord, be blessed everyone. SoaringEagle

James 2;

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[d] works, and I will show you my faith by my[e] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[f] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[g]And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

[JM]

Read my sig.

 

[Beoga]

Isn’t this an example of Christians who have eternal life but refuse to carry their cross for Christ

Many believers are unfaithful and refuse to follow Christ. They need to realize the consequences of their actions before it is too late. Since salvation is a free gift received by faith alone in Christ alone, it cannot be lost even if the recipient regularly denies their Lord.

I don't think that these people were genuine believers. The verse says that they would not confess Christ. It also states that they loved the approval of man above of the approval of God. Now does that really characterize someone who has been born from above?

Christians who do not endure will experience the following consequences at the Judgment Seat of Christ which will last for all eternity:

The Scriptures state that He who endures to the end will be saved. So we must endure to the end in order for final glorification to be applied.