Archive for the ‘Lordship Salvation’ Category

h1

One subtle deception of John MacArthur: Bad Quotes

December 17, 2007

I am amazed that more people do not understand that Truth protects us… we do not protect truth.

John MacArthur states in his book The Truth War…
“It is our duty to guard, proclaim, and pass that truth on to the next generation.” [1 Timothy 6:20–21]

Now let’s go look at his reference.
“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.”

Note how subtle this is… but that is how Satan works!

Yes, Paul is stating to Timothy to “Guard what was committed to your trust..” but does Paul go on to say “go out and fight and expose those who attack truth.”? No.

Paul simply states to Timothy to guard Truth by, “avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge…”

Notice the word… “avoiding“. It does not nor has ever meant to declare war on others.

My Truth is the Person of Jesus Christ. I see that He protects me… I cannot do anything to protect Jesus for He is God and I am a mere man.

So, my question is this… What kind of god needs protecting? And if that god does, how can a finite man protect an Almighty, all powerful God?

It seems to me that John MacArthur has diminished God from Who He really is in this “truth war” and the more I learn of John MacArthur’s theology, the more I wonder if he thinks himself greater than God Himself…

Advertisements
h1

One subtle deception of John MacArthur: Bad Quotes

December 17, 2007

I am amazed that more people do not understand that Truth protects us… we do not protect truth.

John MacArthur states in his book The Truth War…
“It is our duty to guard, proclaim, and pass that truth on to the next generation.” [1 Timothy 6:20–21]

Now let’s go look at his reference.
“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.”

Note how subtle this is… but that is how Satan works!

Yes, Paul is stating to Timothy to “Guard what was committed to your trust..” but does Paul go on to say “go out and fight and expose those who attack truth.”? No.

Paul simply states to Timothy to guard Truth by, “avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge…”

Notice the word… “avoiding“. It does not nor has ever meant to declare war on others.

My Truth is the Person of Jesus Christ. I see that He protects me… I cannot do anything to protect Jesus for He is God and I am a mere man.

So, my question is this… What kind of god needs protecting? And if that god does, how can a finite man protect an Almighty, all powerful God?

It seems to me that John MacArthur has diminished God from Who He really is in this “truth war” and the more I learn of John MacArthur’s theology, the more I wonder if he thinks himself greater than God Himself…

h1

So Ken Silva… What is your beef with Tony Jones?

December 15, 2007
I am going to just ask this open question.
I have read much of Ken Silva’ “false” accusations against many… yet I am wondering what are the specific things Ken holds against Tony?
Now, if you use the “Tony used the “f” word… I will remind you Ken you used the headline,and the quote many more times than Tony has… and in fact I am on record as asking Tony to tame down his language… so let’s move on from that one.
Yet, how can you justify the name calling?
What are the facts behind these “names”… that make them so true?
I am holding this out so that you can state your case. So far I see these as slander and lies… but then, it seems you thrive on those things.
So, without making this all about me… let’s talk about Tony Jones… and all the facts (which seemed to become opinions as of late) that you have piling up against him.
iggy
Updated: This is an example of Ken’s “research” (now opinion) in which as usual he gives only half the story.
So Ken… about the lies and slander (I mean “opinions”) concerning Tony… I am still waiting for you to prove your lies and slander as Truth…
h1

So Ken Silva… What is your beef with Tony Jones?

December 15, 2007
I am going to just ask this open question.
I have read much of Ken Silva’ “false” accusations against many… yet I am wondering what are the specific things Ken holds against Tony?
Now, if you use the “Tony used the “f” word… I will remind you Ken you used the headline,and the quote many more times than Tony has… and in fact I am on record as asking Tony to tame down his language… so let’s move on from that one.
Yet, how can you justify the name calling?
What are the facts behind these “names”… that make them so true?
I am holding this out so that you can state your case. So far I see these as slander and lies… but then, it seems you thrive on those things.
So, without making this all about me… let’s talk about Tony Jones… and all the facts (which seemed to become opinions as of late) that you have piling up against him.
iggy
Updated: This is an example of Ken’s “research” (now opinion) in which as usual he gives only half the story.
So Ken… about the lies and slander (I mean “opinions”) concerning Tony… I am still waiting for you to prove your lies and slander as Truth…
h1

The Gospel According to John MacArthur

November 2, 2007

John W. Robbins wrote an interesting article that when I read it I had to laugh as much of what i have found true of Macarthur’s “Gospel” is stated by Dr. Robbins.

A bit about J.W. Robbins. First he is no fly by night “Trout” anti MacArthur propagandist. In fact even if much that is right on about some of those guys, there is also much to be said about staying away from them also. So many that “attack” MacArthur are on the fringe.

Now though there are many that are biblical scholars that stand up and review the actual theology of MacArthur. I see Dr. Robbins in this category.

Here is his bio.

Here is a bit of the article on John MacArthur’s theology:

“MacArthur rejects the Biblical view of justification and adopts the Roman Catholic view: “Many people believe justified means ‘just-as-if-I’d-never-sinned.’ In other words, God says, ‘I count you righteous even though you’re really not.’ It is true that God makes that declaration, but there is also a reality of righteousness. We are not only declared righteous; we are made righteous”(Justification by Faith, 1988, 98). This making righteous is accomplished by infusing Christ’s righteousness into Christians: “God actually credits righteousness to our account. He imputes righteousness to us; he infuses divine life into us. He regenerates and sanctifies us. He makes the unholy holy, and therefore declares that we are righteous…. There is a reality–God gives us righteousness, and thus he can declare that we are righteous” (Justification, 121). MacArthur writes: “The believing sinner is justified by righteousness infused into him” (Justification, 122).”

Here is the whole article.

Download the PDF version of this review.

Here is a link to the The Westminster Confession of Faith at the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Be blessed,
iggy

h1

The Gospel According to John MacArthur

November 2, 2007

John W. Robbins wrote an interesting article that when I read it I had to laugh as much of what i have found true of Macarthur’s “Gospel” is stated by Dr. Robbins.

A bit about J.W. Robbins. First he is no fly by night “Trout” anti MacArthur propagandist. In fact even if much that is right on about some of those guys, there is also much to be said about staying away from them also. So many that “attack” MacArthur are on the fringe.

Now though there are many that are biblical scholars that stand up and review the actual theology of MacArthur. I see Dr. Robbins in this category.

Here is his bio.

Here is a bit of the article on John MacArthur’s theology:

“MacArthur rejects the Biblical view of justification and adopts the Roman Catholic view: “Many people believe justified means ‘just-as-if-I’d-never-sinned.’ In other words, God says, ‘I count you righteous even though you’re really not.’ It is true that God makes that declaration, but there is also a reality of righteousness. We are not only declared righteous; we are made righteous”(Justification by Faith, 1988, 98). This making righteous is accomplished by infusing Christ’s righteousness into Christians: “God actually credits righteousness to our account. He imputes righteousness to us; he infuses divine life into us. He regenerates and sanctifies us. He makes the unholy holy, and therefore declares that we are righteous…. There is a reality–God gives us righteousness, and thus he can declare that we are righteous” (Justification, 121). MacArthur writes: “The believing sinner is justified by righteousness infused into him” (Justification, 122).”

Here is the whole article.

Download the PDF version of this review.

Here is a link to the The Westminster Confession of Faith at the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Be blessed,
iggy

h1

John MacArthur: Can one be an Arminian and still be saved?

October 26, 2007

I read from two different sources what John MacArthur thinks concerning salvation of Arminians… and really I ended up scratching my head… what does he really believe?

“So, they are diametrically opposed. The question comes, “Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?” And I would hate to say they couldn’t be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a Christian…to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God’s saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time–while being confused or ignorant of those things–to know that you’re a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you’re actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it’s all a work of God.

But, I think it would be going too far to say someone who holds an Arminian view, or anyone who holds an Arminian view, is, by virtue of that view, not a Christian. I think there are people who just don’t understand rightly those things, but who know they’re sinners and who cry out in their sin for the Lord to save them. They don’t understand how what they’re doing works together with the great purposes and power of God, and consequently can’t give God fully the glory He deserves for all of that, but they could be genuinely saved, by hoping in Christ and Christ alone.” Source

Or this?

“He (Spurgeon) preached that both predestination and (limited) free-will were simultaneously in full force. He believed that in the end that salvation was wholly of God from start to finish, and yet God secures the complete cooperation of our wills in so-doing. He decried both antinomianism and fatalism (only predestination) and Arminianism (only free will) and said that anyone who denied either of these two truths was engaged in heresy.

He openly called both heresy. I tend to agree. I really like what this guy says since I had come to the same conclusions myself.

But he said something that confused me for a long time and said that John Wesley (a famous Arminian) was a man of God, yes he disagreed with him, but he said he had great respect for the man.

The best explanation I can come up for this is that Arminians are confused about how they came to Christ, but their definition of the atonement, and who Christ is is accurate, as is their view of sanctification (no striving by works), so it is possible Biblically to admit that Arminians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. It took me a lot of thought to get here however as at first glance I thought a heretical viewpoint always produces heretics who aren’t saved.

The message I heard was that Arminians might be on the the right side of the line, but just barely, just a little more confused thinking about other related issues and the line is easily crossed. You don’t have to get the finer points of theology to be saved, but certain basics are required and Arminianism appears to pass the test, barely, and only if you are willing admit that a faulty view of the atonment is not sufficient to block salvation. As time passes I realize that Spurgeon is essentially spouting double-speak, the definition of heresy is a soul-destroying perversion of either the Gospel or the nature of God. There is no such thing as a heresy that doesn’t kill. Therefore, to be technically accurate, if you believe an Arminian can be a Christian, then to you, Arminianism is not heresy. However, many Arminians of today have swallowed enough other false doctrines to sink their ships so there is no need to argue about Arminianism. I for example was such a one. Spurgeon is consistent with most of his forebears however, including Augustine, who first faced a theology similar to Arminianism, and dealt with it as one would to a brother in Christ, and not as one would deal with a heretic who is outside the body. “
Source

Now, talk about double speak! On one hand Arminians are saved, but are heretics and heresy kills… but as you keep reading John he is clear that they are not saved!

So which is it… or is he double minded?

Be Blessed,
iggy