Lordship Salvation

Tu robimy burze mózgów.......
Awatar użytkownika
chrześcijanin
Posty: 3451
Rejestracja: 13 cze 2008, 20:24
wyznanie: nie chce podawać
Lokalizacja: okręgi niebiańskie Ef2:6
Gender: None specified
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: chrześcijanin » 27 gru 2008, 21:08

Puritan pisze:jest jeszcze jakiś inny powód?

Inni takie powody znajduja - np. herezja Lordship Salvation - czyli zawoalowane zbawienie z uczynkow, podobnie tak jak w tekscie ponizej, klopoty zwiazane z twierdzeniami JFM na temat ofiary Chrystusa (co potwierdzaloby teze ze falszywi nauczyciele zawsze atakuja doskonalosc Chrystusa i doskonalosc ofiary Chrystusa):
(Heretic on the Blood of Christ!)

Comment from webmaster of Jesus-is-Savior.com...

John MacArthur talks out of both sides of his mouth. While professing to believe in the sacrificial blood of Jesus, he also keeps saying that the "bleeding" itself is only symbolic of the death of Christ. Well Mr. MacArthur, the blood that Jesus shed was just as real as His death. When the death angel came over Egypt in Moses day, the blood had to be applied to the doorposts of the home or else the firstborn died. Killing the lamb wasn't enough, the blood HAD TO BE APPLIED. John MacArthur is a heretic for DIMINISHING the importance and necessity of the literal shed (and applied) blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus had to apply His shed blood in heaven on the mercy seat, just as the Old Testament high priest had to apply the blood in the holy of holies.

JOHN MACARTHUR AND THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

By E. L. Bynum

The following article is being reprinted from the Plains Baptist Challenger of August, 1986. After all these years, this information about John MacArthur's teaching, is still needed today. His teaching on the blood of Christ is dangerous, and people are still being led astray by it. There will be a follow up article on this same subject, and if there is enough demand, we shall consider putting this information in a tract or booklet. --E. L. Bynum

In recent weeks, we have received material from two different sources concerning John MacArthur's teaching on the blood of Christ. After reading it over, I find his doctrine to be very disturbing.


MacArthur Minimizes The Blood

The April 1986 edition of Faith For The Family quotes him as saying in a 1976 article entitled, "Not His Bleeding But His Dying" "It was His death that was efficacious. . not His blood. . . Christ did not bleed to death. The shedding of blood had nothing to do with bleeding. . . it simply means death. . . Nothing in His human blood saves...It is not His blood that I love. . . it is Him. It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying." It is incredible to me, that a Christian minister would make such statements.


He Does Not Like Rev. 1:5 In The KJV

In "Not His Bleeding But His Dying," MacArthur had this to say: "I may add a note on Revelation 1:5, a passage which is confusing in the King James Version. The word 'washed' is not correct. The Greek work is 'delivered.' '' With that statement, I would like to take issue. "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood'' (Rev. 1:5). What could possibly be confusing about that? He says that ''washed'' is incorrect and that it should be "delivered." Like most "great" scholars today, MacArthur suffers from the Westcott and Hort syndrome. "Washed" is in the Textus Receptus, and is so rendered by George Ricker Berry in his Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. In his invaluable footnotes, Berry reveals those responsible for trying to change the reading of this verse. The word was changed by Lachmann, 1842- 1850, Tischendorf, Eighth Edition, 1865- 1872, and Tregelles, 1857- 1872. These are three of the men that laid the groundwork for Westcott and Hort, so that they could make the alarming changes in their Revised Version. The American Standard Version, 1901, of course went along with the change, but they did put in a significant footnote. While rendering the word as "loosed," their footnote says, "Many authorities, some ancient, read washed."

I do not agree with the change as found in the ASV, when it reads "Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood." Nor do I agree with the NIV as it reads, "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood." However, whether it is rendered "washed," "loosed," "freed," or "delivered," it is still "by" or "in" His blood that this is done. While the ASV, the NASV, and the NIV definitely weaken the verse, neither one of them will really let MacArthur off the hook. Whether washed from our sins, or delivered from our sins, it is still only by the blood.


MacArthur Sounds Like Bratcher On The Blood

In his commentary on Hebrews, pages 236 to 237, I find further alarming statements as he deals with Hebrews 9:16-22. While he does say some good things, he clearly is talking in circles. When he says that "blood is a symbol of death," he sounds very much like the apostate Dr. Robert G. Bratcher, who translated the "Good News For Modern Man." This is what Bratcher believed, so he felt free to change "blood" to "death" in Eph. 1:7, Heb. 10:19, and Rev. 1:5. He changed "blood" to "sacrifice" in I Pet. 1:19. He also managed to leave out blood, or substitute another word in Matt. 27:4,24,25; Acts 5:28; 17:26, 20:28; Rom. 3:25, 5:9 Col. 1:20; Eph. 2:13, and Rev. 5:9. Of course Bratcher's "Good News Bible" is one of the most corrupt translations of the 20th Century. It would appear that in regard to the blood at least, that MacArthur and Bratcher are on the same wave length.


Why Pit His Blood Against His Death?

MacArthur states that, "It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus." I have never heard of anyone teaching that Jesus only needed to bleed a little to save us, and not to die. Numerous passages of Scripture tell us that Christ died for our sins. This is found in I Cor. 15:3, as well as many other places. If anyone denied this, I would object very strenuously to their denial, but my question is, why does it have to be His "death" or His ''blood"? It is both His "death" and His "blood" that are important according to the Bible.

How can MacArthur truthfully make the following statement? "Again, however, 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. " (Emphasis ours.) Many passages of Scripture reveal that he is dead wrong in his approach.


What Does The Scriptures Say?

The elders were admonished "to feed the church of God, which he bath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). Redemption and remission of sins cannot be apart from "faith in his blood" (Rom. 3:24,25). 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).

In Hebrews we are told that "by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9: 12). We are told, "without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). We have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19). Jesus suffered with out the camp, "that he might sanctify the people with his own blood" (Heb. 13:12).

John tells us clearly that ''the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7) ''Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood'' (Rev. 1:5). They will sing of Christ, ''thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood'' (Rev. 5:9).

Even though MacArthur believes that he has dispensed with Rev. 1:5, as we previously discussed, he still must face Rev. 7:14. I think he shall find little comfort there. "These are they which came out of great tribulation. and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Even the revised texts, and their new version offspring, such as NIV, and the ASV, give MacArthur not one whit of aid and comfort. If the blood itself has no significance, then why do we have all of these Scriptures?


What Christ Said About The Blood

MacArthur's belief cannot be reconciled with the words of my Saviour, when He said, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). "This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20). These words were spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ as He instituted the Lord's Supper for His Church. In all honesty, it would seem to me, that MacArthur should eliminate the drink, "the fruit of the vine," from the Lord's Supper. He only needs the unleavened bread. Of course if he were to do so, he would be in direct disobedience to the Word of God.

The children of Israel were told to slay the Passover lamb. They were to take the blood of the lamb, and strike it upon the door posts of their houses. "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you..." (Ex. 12: 13). God did not tell them to hang the body of the lamb on the door post.

MacArthur's doctrine is in conflict with Lev. 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

It is perfectly clear that MacArthur minimizes the blood of Christ. To me, this is a terrible thing for anyone to do. While he may not go as far as R. B. Thieme, Jr., he certainly is headed in the same direction. Bible believers need to mark such men, and avoid them, according to the Scriptures. The teaching of MacArthur, on this subject, is very dangerous, and he should be exposed.

The clear and direct statements of the above Scriptures prove that John MacArthur is wrong in his teaching about the blood of Christ. He has departed from the general Biblical teaching on this subject. No matter how popular he may be, we must believe the Bible and not MacArthur.


He Is In Conflict With Writers Of The Past

I have examined a number of the writings of other men on Heb. 9:22, and I find that they are not in agreement with John MacArthur. Of this verse, John Gill says, "And without shedding of blood is no remission; that is, of sin; there was no typical remission without it; and there can be no real remission but by the blood of Christ, no instance can be given of pardon without it; if it could be otherwise, the blood of Christ had not been shed..." (Gill's Commentary, Vol. 6, page 734, Baker Book House).

Matthew Poole says, " . . . without the death of some living creature as a sacrifice, and the blood of it not only shed, but sprinkled, there could be neither legal pardon of guilt, nor purging of ceremonial filth. By this God signified to Israel, that without the blood of Christ his Son, and the Testator of his testament, shed as a sacrifice, to purchase and procure both remission and the Spirit, there could be neither pardon of the guilt of sin, and removal of the punishment, nor purging the filth, or renewing the nature of the sinner, his blood being the inestimable price purchasing both for them." (A Commentary on the Holy Bible, by Matthew Poole, Vol. 3, page 851, MacDonald Publishing Company).

E. Schuyler English says of Heb. 9:22, "And now we come to a dogmatic and absolute statement: 'and without shedding of blood is not remission.' All men stand upon one level in respect to the sin question and as to the remission of sins. It cannot be apart from the blood that is shed. This is God's way. This is precious truth. Not one sin can ever be remitted apart from the blood. All generations must look to the blood-the blood of Christ." He further writes, "Sin is a serious matter. It's only antidote is the blood of Christ. . . No, dear friend, we ourselves have no merit, nothing in which we can boast, no hope in the world or in eternity, saving in the precious blood of Christ that was shed for us and pledges to bring us into an eternal inheritance that is incorruptible and cannot fade. 'Without shedding of blood is no remission.' " (Studies In The Epistle To The Hebrews, by E. Schuyler English, pages 270-271, 1955, Southern Bible Book House). While English may be placed in the new evangelical camp, his teaching on the above verse is Biblical.


What Spurgeon Said About The Blood

Charles H. Spurgeon preached a sermon entitled, "The Blood Shedding," February 22, 1857, from Hebrews 9:22. He describes the suffering and death of Christ, and says:

"Mark his brow-they have put about it a crown of thorns, and the crimson drops of gore are rushing down his cheeks! ... But turn aside that purple robe for a moment. His back is bleeding ... They lift up the thongs, still dripping clots of gore; they scourge and tear his flesh, and make river of blood to run down his shoulders! This is the shedding of blood without which there is no remission ... They fling him to the ground; they nail his hands and feet to the transverse wood, they hoist it in the air ... Blood from his head, blood from his hands, blood from his feet ... They pierce his side, and forthwith runneth out blood and water. This is the shedding of blood, sinners and saints; this is the awful shedding of blood, the terrible pouring out of blood, without which for you, and for the whole human race, there is no remission ... It is not a thing which you may doubt, or which you may believe; it must be believed and received, otherwise you have denied the Scriptures and turned aside from God." He further states, "It cuts off every other hope, bring your hopes here, and if they are not based in blood, and stamped with blood, they are as useless as castles in the air, and dreams of night. 'There is no remission,' says the text, in positive and plain cords ... Except you put confidence n the shedding of our Saviour's blood, and in the blood shedding alone, for without it there is no remission." (The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 3, pages 90-92, Pilgrim Publications)

Spurgeon never changed in his preaching of the blood. On May 30, 1875, he preached again from the same text. In his sermon, he repeated over and over, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." Without resorting to lengthy quotations, we can honestly say that his doctrine never changed. He said, "It is not possible that any sin should ever be forgiven to any man without shedding of blood." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 51, page 426, Pilgrim Publications).

Of course nothing is true simply because Spurgeon, Gill, or someone else said it; but it so happens that what they said on the blood is biblical and sound, while what MacArthur has said is false.
No one can deny that MacArthur is a gifted and talented speaker. He is the Senior Minister of Grace Cathedral, Panorama City, California, and the popular speaker on the widely distributed radio broadcast entitled, "Grace To You." He has built a tremendously large church, and he has a very large radio audience. This is all the more reason why someone should expose his false teaching on the blood. No doubt we shall lose some friends over this exposure of error, but we hold truth dearer than we do friends. The cause of truth must ever be first. -From Plains Baptist Challenger 8/86

SOURCE
JOHN MACARTHUR AND THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

A few months ago a pastor friend and I visited a John MacArthur meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, and I purchased a copy of MacArthur's commentary on Hebrews with the desire to see exactly what he says about the Blood of Jesus Christ. This commentary was published in 1983 by Moody Press. Moody Bible Institute holds the copyright.

There can be no mistake about MacArthur's position that the Blood itself does not save us, that the Blood is SYMBOLIC of death. Words could not be plainer. In a mere three pages of this book MacArthur uses the term "symbolic" no less than thirteen times:

"Blood is a SYMBOL of death, and therefore follows closely the idea of a testator's having to die in order for a will to become effective. ...

"It is possible to become morbid about Christ's sacrificial death and preoccupied with His suffering and shedding of blood. It is especially possible to become unbiblically preoccupied with the physical aspects of His death. It was not Jesus' physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is SYMBOLIZED by the shedding of His physical blood. ...

"The purpose of the blood was to SYMBOLIZE sacrifice for sin, which brought cleansing from sin. Therefore, without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

"Again, however, 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. It is not surprising, then, that the Old Covenant allowed a SYMBOL for a SYMBOL. ... This exception is clear proof that the old cleansing was SYMBOLIC. Just as the animal blood SYMBOLIZED Christ's true atoning blood, so the ephah of flour SYMBOLIZED and represented the animal blood. This non-blood offering for sin was acceptable because the old sacrifice was entirely SYMBOLIC anyway.

"Yet this was the only exception. And even the exception represented a blood sacrifice. The basic SYMBOL could not be changed because what it SYMBOLIZED could not be changed. ... Since the penalty for sin is death, nothing but death, SYMBOLIZED by shedding of blood, can atone for sin. ... the only way we can participate in the New Covenant, is through the atoning DEATH of Jesus Christ, made effective for us when we trust in Him as saving Lord" (John MacArthur, Hebrews, pp. 236- 238).

Let me remind our readers that this book is still being published by Moody Press and is being sold by John MacArthur's ministry. I purchased it directly from his ministry in Canada this year. This is not something that MacArthur said off the cuff many years ago and which he has since corrected. This is precisely what the man believes today.

MacArthur's position on the Blood of Christ is a great heresy. It is precisely the same heresy promoted by the translator of the Today's English Version, who replaced the term "blood" with "death" in most key passages.

Blood is NOT merely symbolic for death when we are speaking of Christ's Atonement. God's law demands death AND the shedding of blood for remission of sin (Lev. 17:11; Eze. 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Heb. 9:22). The Old Testament sacrifices depicted how the Lord Jesus Christ would pay the price for sin. The blood of the O. T. sacrifices did not merely depict Christ's death; it depicted Christ's BLOOD. His death alone could not save us; His blood was required. In Romans 5:9-10 we see the two together. Verse 9 says we are justified "by his blood," and verse 10 says we are reconciled "by his death." Any view which confuses the blood of Christ with His death is heresy.

I realize that MacArthur has taken some unusual stands for an Evangelical today. He has spoken against the Charismatic movement and against Promise Keepers and against Evangelicals & Catholics Together. In fact, though, the man refuses to practice biblical separation. He claims that Charismatics are theologically wrong, for example, but he fellowships with them and stands shoulder to shoulder with them in preaching engagements. Be not deceived: John MacArthur is NOT a friend to the Fundamental, Bible-believing, New Testament church. He is a dangerous New Evangelical, and his position on the Blood of Christ is heresy.

SOURCE


MACARTHUR DENIES THE REALITY OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

MacArthur says the blood of Christ "could not save" and "it was not the FLUID that saved us, it was the DEATH of Christ."

In the May 1976 issue of the Grace to You Family paper that is distributed to his church, MacArthur published an article titled "Not His Bleeding, but His Dying." In this, MacArthur plainly stated that it is not the blood of Christ that saves.

Ten years later, in a letter to Tim Weidlich, Paul Clark, Kevin Jolliff of Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC, April 4, 1986, MacArthur made the following statement of his position:

"Obviously, it was not the blood of Jesus that saves or He could have bled for us without dying. It was His death for sin that saves. When Romans 3:25 speaks of 'faith in His blood' everyone understands that to be a reference to His death -- not the blood running through His body. In Romans 5:9, being 'justified by His blood' also refers to His death, as verse 10 makes clear in saying 'we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.' In fact, the careful explanation of salvation in Romans 6 omits any reference to His blood at all. The point is that the shedding of blood was just the visible indication of His death, His life being poured out. ... I admit that because of some traditional hymns there is an emotional attachment to the blood -- but that should not pose a problem when one is dealing with theological or textual specificity. I can sing hymns about the blood and rejoice with them -- but I understand that reference to be a metonym for His death."

MacArthur was still preaching this in the 1990s. When I attended one of his conferences in British Columbia in that decade, I purchased a copy of his commentary on Hebrews to check out his teaching on the blood for myself. In this commentary, MacArthur repeatedly says the blood is merely "symbolic" of death.

This is the false position taken by Robert Bratcher, editor of the Today's English Version. In that perverted translation the word "death" is almost always substituted for the word "blood" when the Scriptures are referring to Christ's atonement.

This is a damnable heresy, because the atonement REQUIRES BOTH the death and the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:22). The blood IS NOT merely symbolic for death. It itself is a crucial part of our salvation.

MACARTHUR TEACHES A LORDSHIP SALVATION DOCTRINE

"MacArthur's new book, The Gospel According to Jesus, is confusing concerning salvation. Much of what he says is good. But we cannot agree with his 'lordship salvation' remedy to 'easy believism' and the loose living of some professing Christians of our day, since it requires more from the seeking sinner than the Bible does for obtaining salvation. He erects a straw man, and makes it appear that those who oppose his 'lordship salvation' teachings believe things they do not believe. His tone often seems reactionary. Puritan and Reformed influences are evident in this book. [MacArthur is a Calvinist.] He seems to confusingly mix justification and sanctification, salvation and discipleship, and blurs dispensational considerations. The cure for a 'too easy' gospel is not to complicate it. Paul warned of the danger of being 'corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ' (2 Cor. 11:3). Dr. J. I. Packer in the book's foreword said 'those who reject leadership salvation choose to keep works out of justification.' Galatians 2:16 likewise does!" (Calvary Contender, Jan. 15, 1989).

MACARTHUR IS HYPER CALVINIST

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..."

In his popular study Bible, MacArthur denies that Jesus Christ died as a Substitute for all men.

MACARTHUR IS A NEW EVANGELICAL ECUMENIST

MacArthur frequently speaks at ecumenical forums, such as the Moody Bible Institute Founder's Week. For example, at the February 1986 Moody Bible Institute conference, MacArthur joined hands with two of the chief ecumenists of our day, Billy Graham and Luis Palau. Both Graham and Palau regularly join together in ecumenical relations with Roman Catholics. Graham has turned thousands of his converts over to the hands of the wolves in sheep's clothing in the various Catholic parishes that have participated in his crusades. (We have documented this extensively in our 371-page book Evangelicals and Rome.)

In July 1988, MacArthur spoke at the Congress on the Church and the Disabled at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, which featured Roman Catholic and New Evangelical speakers (Moody Monthly, Oct. 1988).

MacArthur participates in the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and speaks at their conferences. The NRB is extremely ecumenical. The 1997 conference featured Seventh-day Adventists, "laughing revival" Pentecostals, the Worldwide Church of God, and an entire slate of New Evangelicals, such as Joseph Stowell, Franklin Graham, Max Lucado, and David Jeremiah.

In 1987, MacArthur participated in Jerry Falwell's Super Conference VIII, which featured E. V. Hill. The late Dr. Hill pastored a church affiliated with the modernistic National Council of Churches in America and he was an ecumenist of the ecumenists. I heard Hill speak at New Orleans '87 to a mixed crowd of some 40,000 Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, and Pentecostals. Fifty percent of the attendees were Roman Catholic, and a Catholic priest brought the final message. Hill said, "And to see all of our Catholic friends here. Wow. We are almost there!" He accepted them as brethren in Christ and did not have one word of warning to them about Rome's false gospel. This was a pattern in Hill's ministry. He often joined hands with Roman Catholics. Other examples are the Washington for Jesus Rally in 1980, Graham's Amsterdam conference in 1983, and the Congress on the Bible II in 1987.

In these various ecumenical forums, MacArthur also puts stamp of approval upon every sort of Contemporary Christian Music and Christian rock music by making his appearance and not speaking out against the worldliness and compromise that is present.

For more about MacArthur's New Evangelical philosophy and practice, see our article "John MacArthur and New Evangelical Ecumenism,"

SOURCE

Another Look At Macarthur And The Blood of Christ


By Pastor E. L. Bynum

Is is possible that John MacArthur, the popular pastor and radio speaker, is not sound in doctrine on the blood of Christ? It is not only possible, but it is certain that his views are at variance with the Word of God. In the August 1986 issue of the Plains Baptist Challenger we published an article examining those views. Other publications have also exposed his unscriptural views on the blood of Christ.

Since that time, MacArthur has written a number of letters trying to justify his doctrine. Several copies of these letters have been mailed to us by our readers. I have also received a letter from MacArthur, addressed directly to me. After reading these letters a number of times, I am more convinced than ever that his views are contrary to Scripture.


MacArthur's Teaching On The Blood

In the August article, I quoted from the April 1986 issue of Faith For The Family published by Bob Jones University. For the benefit of new readers, I shall quote the entire article from Faith For The Family.

"John MacArthur's, in 1976, said in an article entitled, 'Not His Bleeding But His Dying:' "It was His death that was efficacious...not His blood...Christ did not bleed to death. The shedding of blood has nothing to do with bleeding...it simply means death...violent sacrificial death...Nothing in His human blood saves...it is not His blood that I love...it is Him. It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying.' I wonder what MacArthur does with Hebrews 9:22, 'without the shedding of blood is no remission.' and I John 1:7, 'the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin'? MacArthur's position is heresy. - Editor"

That issue of Faith For The Family list Bob Jones as Editor. We are indebted to Bob Jones for bringing MacArthur's doctrine to light. I agree with him when he said "MacArthur's position is heresy."


Has MacArthur Been Misrepresented?

In a letter dated August 29, 1986, MacArthur said, "I am convinced that most of the confusion could have been avoided had the magazine (Faith For The Family) used my comments in their full context." I would imagine that Bob Jones did indeed have his comments in full, when he wrote the above statement. I know for certain that I did have his full comments before I wrote the article for the August PBC. His full comments in no way clear him of the false doctrine that he expounds.

Some pastors and editors now say that they are convinced that MacArthur is sound on the blood of Christ. Frankly, I wonder if these people have examined his doctrine, or if they have been by his rhetoric. After reading his letters, in spite of his rewording and rephrasing some of his doctrine, it still adds up to the same thing. The man simply has peculiar and unscriptural views concerning the blood of Christ. Undoubtedly, he is an expressive writer and speaker, with great powers of persuasion.

The original comments under discussion were published by MacArthur in 1976. He entitled it "Not His Bleeding But His Dying." It begins with a letter which said, "Dear John, I would like to ask you about your recent statements concerning the 'blood of Christ.' Could you take a moment to explain to me what you meant more clearly? Thank you, A Learning Member." Apparently, the "Learning Member" was troubled by some of the things MacArthur had said. The rest of the page contains MacArthur's answer in fairly small print, and among other things, it contains the quotes that were printed in Faith For The Family. I do not find that those remarks were taken out of context, nor do they misrepresent what MacArthur said.


MacArthur's Recent Letter

In his Sept. 25th letter to me, he begins by saying, "Dear Pastor Bynum: Recently, I became aware of the syllabus being distributed by Rev. D.A. Waite regarding what he believes to be my position on the precious blood of my Saviour.

" I have to tell you that I have been misrepresented, slandered, falsely accused, and lied about in regard to this issue. Of course I believe Jesus Christ shed His blood in sacrificial death for the sins of the world - no one could read the Scripture and believe otherwise. I have preached and written on the virtues of Christ's 'shed blood' for years"

I am just wondering who "misrepresented, slandered, falsely accused, and lied" about this man's views. I certainly cannot find where Bob Jones did this. I certainly did not do so in my August article. After reading what I wrote, I wouldn't change any of it, if anything I would make it stronger. I did not have Waite's syllabus at the time I wrote my article, but since then I have examined a copy, and I do not find where D.A. Waite misrepresented him either. MacArthur's whole problem is that his unscriptural views have been put into print, and he has not found any way to extricate himself. His problem could be easily solved if he would only admit his error, repent of it, and simply state what the Bible says about the blood of Christ and affirm his belief of the same.

In his letter he refutes some of the heretical doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church on the blood. He also denounces several other heretical views, that personally I have never heard of in over 30 years in the ministry. He leaves the impression that someone is teaching that Christ only needed to bleed a little, and not to die, in order to save sinners. Just who is teaching such heresy, MacArthur never does say. Most likely this is a straw man erected in the brain of MacArthur.

He asks, "How could the red and white corpuscles be literally applied to believers in salvation? To our physical bodies? Could it be otherwise with literal blood? Will MacArthur ever tell us just who is teaching such nonsense? I doubt if he ever will. His third question seems to imply that those who believe that the literal blood of Christ saves, are teaching that the red and white corpuscles are applied to believers. Surely he can do better than that. He vainly tries to smear those who believe in the power of the blood with the Catholic heresy of transubstantiation.


Some Good Things He SEEMS To Say

"Of course I believe Jesus Christ shed His blood in sacrificial death for the sins of the world.." "I affirm that the New Covenant was ratified by Christ's blood; that the blood of Christ is precious; and that Christ shed His blood in dying for our sins." This may sound well and good, but what MacArthur giveth in one place, he taketh away in another. One should be extremely careful in examining any statement he makes in regard to the shedding of blood. Why is that? It is simply because MacArthur by his other statements, has already revealed that he means something else when he speaks of the shedding of blood.

1. HIS STRANGE VIEWS ON THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD

In his 1976 article he said, "The shedding of blood has nothing to do with bleeding...it simply means death...violent sacrificial death." John 19:34 gives some interesting insights. The reference is literally to 'blood-clots and serum.' The soldier piercing His chest cavity with a spear demonstrated that Jesus had not bled to death. His blood was still in His veins and arteries after physical death."

No one that I know claims that Jesus bled to death. This is a smokescreen without a doubt. We maintain that Christ did indeed shed his blood and that He also died. According to MacArthur's own words, he does not believe that Christ literally shed His blood, but that the Scriptures which speak of such a thing, are merely referring to His death. The Bible says, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water" (John 19:34). According to MacArthur this is not so, but rather 'blood-clots and serum' came out. This may be the idea of MacArthur and some modern medical man, but I will just believe what the Bible says. All this is suppose to be a part of his evidence that Christ did not shed His blood.

He repeats this error in his Sept. 25th letter, where he says, "The shedding of His blood was the visible manifestation of His life being poured out in sacrifice, and Scripture consistently uses the term 'shedding of blood' as a metonym for atoning death." (Emphasis ours). It is incredible that he continues to rephrase the same error. Webster says that a "metonym" is, "a word used in metonymy, as a substitute for another." So there you have it, when MacArthur speaks of the "shedding of blood," he is really speaking about the death of Christ. Shades of Karl Barth - for this is the method of neo-orthodoxy.


What Does "Shedding Of Blood" Mean?

It is not too difficult to discover what shed and shedding means in the Bible. The word translated shed in the O. T. is also translated many times as "pour out" or "poured out." See Lev. 17:11,13. It is used of the pouring out of the blood. "The priest...shall pour all the blood of the bulllock at the bottom of the altar.." (Lev. 4:7) See Lev. 4:18,25,30,34; Deut. 12:16,24; 15:23, and many other O. T. scriptures. William Wilson in his O. T. Word Studies says that it means "to pour out." In I Kings 18:28 the same word is used where it reads "till the blood gushed out."

The Lord tells us, "without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. 9:22) "Shedding of blood" is translated from one word, and Strong says that word comes from two Greek words. One is "haima" which is the Greek word for blood, and the other is "ekcheo" which is the Greek word for shed or to pour out. Strong says of "haimatekchusia," the word found in Heb. 9:22, that it means "an effusion of blood - shedding of blood." Now as for the word that is translated "shed," "pour out," "gush out," etc., how can anyone deny that it means simply that. Strong says that it means "to pour," or to "gush (pour) out." Berry and Thayer says that it means "to pour out." On the basis of that, how in the word could John MacArthur say, "The shedding of blood has nothing to do with bleeding..it simply means death...violent sacrificial death?" (Emphasis ours). This writer is completely mystified as to where he gets his information. It is not to be found in the Bible, nor in the lexicons and word studies, so where does it come from?

In his 1976 article, MacArthur said, "His shed blood represents His sacrificial physical and spiritual death for us." No, his shed blood represents His shed blood. It is wrong to try to teach that blood means death. A careful reading of his statements makes it clear that he does not really believe that Christ shed His blood.


II. MACARTHUR'S ERROR ON THE SAVING POWER OF CHRIST'S BLOOD

In our view, the most grievous and deadly part of MacArthur's false doctrine is his outright denial of the saving power of the blood of Christ.

We must remember that MacArthur's 1976 article was not written to a Catholic, or a cult member, but to a "Dear Learning Member." Whether it was to a member of his own church we do not know, but it was to someone who signed their name, "A Learning Member." Now let us see what he writes to that learning member.

MacArthur Vs. The Word Of God "It was His death that was efficacious..not His blood." (Emphasis ours throughout article. The three dots were placed there by MacArthur's and does not represent something that we have left out.) "Nothing in His human blood saves." Not only has MacArthur not repudiated his 1976 statement, but he repeats something very similar to it, in his August 29, 1986 letter, when he said, "The blood of Christ is precious - but as precious as it is, His physical blood could not save."

It is incredible that a veteran pastor and Bible teacher would make such unbelievable statements. To cleverly cloud the issue, he brings in "His human blood," and "His physical blood." Why bring in such words as "human" and "physical"? Why not just use the terminology of the Bible.

Contrary to what MacArthur's says, the Bible does place strong emphasis on the saving cleansing power of the blood of Christ.

His blood was shed for the remission of sins. When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, He took the cup which contained the fruit or juice of the vine and said, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:28). Of course, the fruit of the vine did not turn into the blood of Christ, but it symbolized something that was real, and that was the blood of Christ. Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins.

We have been purchased by His blood. When Paul was speaking to the elders of the Church at Ephesus, he told them "to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28).

Redemption and remission of sins cannot be apart from FAITH IN HIS BLOOD." (Rom. 3:24,25).

We are justified by His blood. "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Rom. 5:9). We gladly affirm that "Christ died for us" as we are told in v.8, but by so doing we will never, never play down the value of His blood. The Bible places great emphasis on both the death of Christ, and the shed blood of Christ. Why should anyone try to play down either His death, or His shed blood??

We have redemption through His blood. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sin, according to the riches of his grace." (Eph. 1:7) "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (Col. 1:14). There is no redemption for the sinner, and there is no forgiveness of sins apart from the shed blood of Christ.

We have peace through His blood. "And having made peace through the blood of his cross." (Col. 1:20)

We are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (See Eph. 2:12).

By His own blood He entered into the holy place. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb. 9:12) On the day of atonement, the high priest took the blood of a bullock into the holy place and sprinkled it on the mercy seat for his own sins. Then he took the blood of a goat into that same place and sprinkled it on the mercy seat for the sins of the people. (See Lev. 16). Jesus did not do that. He entered into the holy place in heaven, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood. It was done once, not every year, or perpetually!

Our sins are purged, and remitted by the blood of Christ. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. 9:22)

We are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. Peter, by divine inspiration tells us that we are "redeemed...with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." (I Pet. 1:18,19) .

Our sins are cleansed by the blood of Christ. "The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin." (I John 1:7).

We are washed from our sins by His blood. "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood." (Rev. 1:15). MacArthur says that "washed" should be "delivered." We don't buy that, but even if it were so, we would still be "delivered from our sins in this own blood."

We are redeemed to God by His blood. (See Rev. 5:9)

Tribulation saints will wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb. (See Rev. 7:14).

Will You Believe MacArthur, Or The Bible?

In light of the above Scriptures, as well as many others, I am amazed that any man would have the audacity to say, "It was His death that was efficacious...not His blood." Who is he to say, "Nothing in His human blood saves?"


III. MACARTHUR AND THE O.T. SACRIFICES

In our view, he makes some misleading statements about the O. T. sacrifices. While much that he says is true, there is a deadly danger in the implications of some of his remarks. He writes the following in his Sept. 25th, 1986 letter. "Bloodshed was God's design for all Old Testament sacrifices. They were bled to death rather than clubbed or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss as a vivid manifestation of life. ('the life of the flesh is in the blood') being poured out. Nevertheless, those who were too poor to bring animals for sacrifices were allowed to bring one-tenth of an ephah (about two quarts) of fine flour instead (Lev. 5:11). Their sins were covered just as surely as the sins of those who could afford to offer a lamb, goat, turtledove, or pigeon (Lev. 5:6-7). That is because the sacrifice was entirely symbolic anyway."

In this paragraph MacArthur has chosen a passage of Scripture that he believes will help his cause. The offerings that were required in the first six chapters of Leviticus varied. Of course all of these offerings pointed to Christ and typified His life and work. The offerings of Leviticus 2 were made of flour, oil, and frankincense. The fine flour typifies the evenness, balance, and purity of His person. No blood sacrifice is required in this chapter. An animal for a blood sacrifice was required in chapters 1,3,4 and 6. MacArthur is correct in saying that in chapter 5, the poor could bring an offering of fine flour. We venture to say that the fine flour did not typify the blood of Christ, but it did symbolize other aspects of His life and death.


How Does This Affect The Other Sacrifices?

It affects them not at all. Cain could bring nothing but a lamb. Nothing else would be acceptable to God. Not the fruit of the field, and not fine flour would suffice. (See Gen. 4). Could Noah offer fine flour on the altar? No! He had to offer the clean beasts and clean fowls. (See Gen.8:20). On the Passover night down in Egypt, could the Israelites have offered fine flour instead of a lamb? Could they have dusted fine flour on the door posts? No, they could not! It had to be a lamb. If death was the only issue, then they could have hung the head or the hooves of the lamb on the door posts. Yes, the lamb must die, but the shed blood had to be sprinkled on the door posts in order to save the firstborn. (See Ex. 12)

On the day of atonement, could the high priest have taken fine flour and sprinkled it on the mercy seat? No, he had to take the blood of the bullock for his own sins, and the blood of the goat for the sins of the people, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat. So for MacArthur to take the one instance from the Old Testament where the poor could take an offering of fine flour rather than a blood sacrifice, is in my view, very misleading. In all other instances it did make a difference whether there was a blood sacrifice made or not.


Beating Around The Mulberry Bush

MacArthur is a very, very articulate man. He knows the English language well, and is able to express himself as well as anyone we have ever heard. It is very strange that he has to be beat around and around the mulberry bush in page after page, and still be unable to make himself perfectly clear. Why is this? It is because he has peculiar and unscriptural views of the blood of Christ. After reading his letters on the blood, I have the distinct impression that they are blurred by fog and smog. If he ever decides to come out from behind his smokescreen, none of us will have any difficulty in understanding what he believes about the blood. He could settle this problem very easily, by simply repudiating his heretical statements about the blood of Christ. He could then simply take the fundamental approach of accepting what the Bible says about the saving power of the blood of Christ. It is clear, it is simple, and only someone who has something to hide, will fog the issue by using strange terms about the precious blood of Christ.

We will probably make more enemies than friends over this issue, because most people do not like controversy. But regardless of the cost, we have no intentions of backing up on this fundamental doctrine of the Word of God.


IV. FUNDAMENTAL LEADERS ARE DISTURBED ABOUT THE FALSE TEACHING ON THE BLOOD

The September/October, 1986 issue of the News Bulletin of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America contains two highly significant items, about the blood of Christ. While I am not a member of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, I heartily commend them for speaking out on the blood of Christ.

First, there is an outlined Bible Study entitled, "The Blood Of Christ - I Peter 1:18-19." Although it is unsigned, this excellent study takes up almost two pages. It may well have been written by Don Jasmin, their Research Secretary. In my view, it blows MacArthur's foggy position right out of the water.

Second, it contains a resolution passed by the World Congress of Fundamentalists, meeting on the campus of Bob Jones University, August 4-8, 1986. While MacArthur's name is not mentioned in the Bible Study or in the Resolution, there is no doubt in my mind as to why they are speaking out at this very time. While MacArthur is trying to make out like fundamental leaders are in agreement with him on the blood, we venture to say that there are many fundamental pastors who are deeply disturbed over his stand. We believe that there are many who want to distance themselves from the false teaching of John MacArthur.

Below we are reproducing word for word the resolution mentioned above. It is clear and plain. There is no foggy and misleading words contained in it. Any Christian can understand it, but the same cannot be said for MacArthur's views.


WORLD CONGRESS OF FUNDAMENTALISTS PASSES RESOLUTION ON THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

Meeting on the campus of Bob Jones University August 4-8 delegates at the World Congress of Fundamentalists passed numerous resolutions dealing with pertinent issues. Among those resolutions was this timely one dealing with the blood of Christ.


Regarding the Position of the World Congress of Fundamentalists on the Blood of Christ

Whereas the physical body of Christ in the Holy Scriptures means the real, literal body of God the Son incarnate; so also in the Holy Scriptures when the Blood of Christ is mentioned, it is the real, literal Blood which was poured out from that same body and which accomplished our redemption.

The Bible reveals the mysteries of our redemption. In that revelation a divine principle is revealed, illustrated, and enforced. That principle is"...Without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22).

Sin can only be atoned for and cleansed from the heart of the sinner by the precious Blood of God's appointed Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ must die once for all, but His death must be by literal blood-shedding; and the Blood shed becomes the all-sufficient merit by which sin's guilt-power, and ultimately its very present, are destroyed.

The Holy Scriptures nowhere separate the voluntary death of Christ from the sacrificial shedding of His sinless Blood, but rather links them inextricably in one inseparable act.


The Bible Reveals:

1. That the precious Blood is incorruptible. It cannot be anything else because of its intrinsic purity. I Peter 1:18,19: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold...But with the precious blood of Christ.."

2. That the precious blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in Heaven. Hebrews 12:24: "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

3. That the precious Blood is invaluable. It cannot be anything else because of its parentage. It is the Blood of God incarnate. Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood..." Acts 20:28: "...the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

4. That the precious Blood is indispensable. It cannot be anything else because of its power. No sinner can be saved without washing in the Blood of the Lamb. Revelations 7:14: "..these are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."


Therefore, this Congress:

1. Reaffirms its adherence to the Scriptural teaching on this subject;

2. Rejects every attempt either to deny the literalness of the Blood or to minimize its efficacy and the necessity of its shedding in Christ's death on the cross. Such denial is a dangerous and devilish deception;

3. Calls upon Fundamentalist preachers and God's saints everywhere to proclaim anew the saving efficacy of the shed Blood of Christ in His death on the cross, and to alert the Church in regard to all heretical teaching on this vital truth, ever remembering that we overcome the devil himself by the Blood of the Lamb. Revelation 12:11: "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony..."


Wierz w Pana Jezusa Chrystusa a będziesz zbawiony
Obrazek
cms|skr328|PL50950Wroclaw68
Zapraszam 11-14 luty na wykłady Maxa Billetera na Śląsku LINK: http://skroc.pl/3fb2
Awatar użytkownika
fantomik
Posty: 15826
Rejestracja: 20 sty 2008, 15:54
wyznanie: Inne ewangeliczne
Gender: Male
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: fantomik » 27 gru 2008, 21:13

A może te jego powyższe twierdzenie było tylko pewną prowokacją aby zwrócić uwagę, że nie tylko cielesne cierpienie umożliwiło dokupienie ale również to co spowodowało wypowiedzenie słów: "Boże mój Boże, czemuś mnie opuścił?". Tak sobie tylko dywaguję gdyż nie czytałem tekstu źródłowego, który jest tam cytowany.

Pozdrawiam,
f. (moje dwa grosze)


"Cóż zatem Ateny mają wspólnego z Jerozolimą? Cóż Akademia z Kościołem? Cóż heretycy z chrześcijanami?" — Tertulian
"...ilość nieprawdziwych informacji na temat teologii Kalwina jakie zostały podane jest wystarczająca aby wielokrotnie udowodnić jego doktrynę totalnej deprawacji!" — J.I. Packer
"Take a quiet moment to yourself today. Read a book. Sip a latte. Look out the window. (Then do the same thing, every single day, for the rest of your life.)" — Susan Cain
Nehemiah 8:10: I rzekł im Nehemiasz: Idźcie, spożywajcie potrawy świąteczne i pijcie napoje słodkie - poślijcie też porcje temu, który nic gotowego nie ma: albowiem poświęcony jest ten dzień Panu naszemu. A nie bądźcie przygnębieni, gdyż radość w Panu jest waszą ostoją.
Awatar użytkownika
chrześcijanin
Posty: 3451
Rejestracja: 13 cze 2008, 20:24
wyznanie: nie chce podawać
Lokalizacja: okręgi niebiańskie Ef2:6
Gender: None specified
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: chrześcijanin » 27 gru 2008, 21:18

chrzescijanin pisze:Puritan napisał/a:
jest jeszcze jakiś inny powód?

Inni takie powody znajduja - np. herezja Lordship Salvation - czyli zawoalowane zbawienie z uczynkow, podobnie tak jak w tekscie ponizej, klopoty zwiazane z twierdzeniami JFM na temat ofiary Chrystusa (co potwierdzaloby teze ze falszywi nauczyciele zawsze atakuja doskonalosc Chrystusa i doskonalosc ofiary Chrystusa):

The MacArthur Study Bible
(copyright 1997, Word Publishing)
It Will Lead You Away From God (the Truth)

Those who read and follow the notes contained in The MacArthur Study Bible will be led to the same place MacArthur is going, that is, the blackness of darkness (2 Peter 2:17), where all unbelievers go, the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). Because, although it is in great deceit, MacArthur encourages people away from a true trust in the Word of God, and if a person's trust is not truly in God's Word, they will go to hell (Revelation 21:8). For it is written,

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4)

It is the Word of God that saves, as James says,

receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:21)

When a false teacher can deceitfully encourage people's trust away from God's Word, he leads them away from the very truth that would save them. This is what MacArthur does.

We have not extensively read through all of MacArthur's notes to find all of the false doctrine contained therein. But, what we have found has been enough to prove further MacArthur's Satanic connection. That which is documented below are examples. We have not included every error we found.

Introduction

To begin with, MacArthur is rightfully held responsible for all the notes in his study Bible. In the section entitled "Personal Notes" MacArthur writes,

". . . I personally bear full responsibility for all the notes in The MacArthur Study Bible . . ."

and,

" . . . I worked and re-worked the study notes into their final form."

Therefore, according to MacArthur, he is not only to be held accountable for all the notes in this Bible, but he admits to having carefully and thoughtfully established them all.

Furthermore, MacArthur himself admits that false teaching consists of any teaching that does not line up with God's Word. In his note on Hebrews 13:9 he writes,

13:9 various and strange doctrines. These would include any teaching contrary to God's Word. The NT contains countless warnings against false teaching and false teachers (cf. Acts 20:29,30; Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 10:4,5; Gal. 1:6-9; Eph. 4:14; 2 Tim. 3:16).

So, MacArthur admits to the warning Scripture gives against "any teaching contrary to God's Word" and the false teachers who espouse such teaching.

Moreover, MacArthur further acknowledges that false teachers appear as "Christian pastors."

The false teachers parade themselves as Christian pastors, teachers, and evangelists (cf. Jude 4). [p. 1954, footnote to 2 Peter 2:1]

Finally, MacArthur recognizes the dreadful wickedness of those who teach contrary to God's Word. In his note on 2 Peter 2:1 MacArthur writes,

The greatest sin of Christ-rejecters and the most damning work of Satan is misrepresentation of the truth and its consequent deception. Nothing is more wicked than for someone to claim to speak for God to the salvation of souls when in reality he speaks for Satan to the damnation of souls (cf. Deut. 13:1-18; 18:20; Jer. 23; Ezk. 13; Matt. 7:15; 23:1-36; 24:4,5; Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 11:13, 14; Gal. 3:1,2; 2 Tim. 4:3,4).

This Satanic work is exactly what MacArthur himself does. He parades himself as a Christian pastor, but in reality, he is a false teacher.

On the front and back inside dust jacket of The MacArthur Study Bible it is written,

So while some popular study Bibles present multiple viewpoints, MacArthur's notes always point you towards a single destination: God's unchanging truth. [bold added]

The above statement is a lie. Several times over, MacArthur's notes go directly against God's unchanging truth, add to His unchanging truth (Proverbs 30:5-6), or twist (2 Peter 3:16) His unchanging truth.

I. Antichrist Teaching

Besides the extensive false teaching displayed in this Bible (see below), MacArthur unwittingly calls himself an antichrist in his own Bible. In his footnote on 1 John 2:22-23 MacArthur writes,

2:22,23 denies the Father and the Son. A second characteristic of antichrists is that they deny the faith (i.e. sound doctrine). Anyone denying the true nature of Christ as presented in the Scripture is an antichrist (cf. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:11).

In this very same Bible, MacArthur denies "the true nature of Christ" and denies both the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22-23). In his note for Psalm 2:7 MacArthur writes,

You are My Son. This recalls 2 Sam. 7:8-16 as the basis for the Davidic king. It is also the only OT reference to the Father/Son relationship in the Trinity, a relationship planned in eternity past and realized in the incarnation, thus a major part of the NT. (p. 744, see also p. 1691 & 1897)

When MacArthur says Psalm 2:7 is the "only OT reference to the Father/Son relationship" he lies and does not speak the truth (e.g. Proverbs 30:4). When MacArthur says that "the Father/Son relationship" was "planned in eternity" he denies both the Father and the Son who have always been the Father and the Son (Proverbs 30:4; John 17:5), and he denies "the true nature of Christ;" that is, that Christ's very nature has always been the Son of God. This is who He is and has always been (Hebrews 13:8). This relationship was not "planned in eternity." It is basic to who the real God is!

Since the printing of his study Bible, MacArthur has changed his view on the nature of Christ (see Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ, hard copy available), but he claims that his former teaching was "by no means rank heresy." His own Bible condemns him. His teaching was not only rank heresy, but was antichrist, by his own inadvertent admission.

II. The Limited Atonement Lie

1 John 2:1-2 says,

My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

MacArthur writes concerning 1 John 2:2,

for the whole world. This is a generic term, referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general. Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who would repent and believe. A number of Scriptures indicate that Christ died for the world (John 1:29; 3:16; 6:51; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9). Most of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own sins, so they could not have been paid for by Christ. The passages which speak of Christ's dying for the whole world must be understood to refer to mankind in general (as in Titus 2:11). "World" indicates the sphere, the beings toward whom God seeks reconciliation and has provided propitiation. God has mitigated His wrath on sinners temporarily, by letting them live and enjoy earthly life (see note on 1 Tim. 4:10). In that sense, Christ has provided a brief, temporal propitiation for the whole world. But He actually satisfied fully the wrath of God eternally only for the elect who believe. Christ's death in itself had unlimited and infinite value because He is Holy God. Thus His sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all whom God brings to faith. But the actual satisfaction and atonement was made only for those who believe (cf. John 10:11, 15; 17:9, 20; Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32, 37; Eph. 5:25). [p. 1965, bold added]

None of the verses MacArthur gives at the end of this quote say what he says ("only for those who believe"). They speak about those for whom Christ died, but they say nothing about Him dying "only for those who believe."

The propitiation of Christ, the death of Christ, is stated in 1 John 2:2 to be not only for us, believers (e.g. 1 John 1:7; 5:13), but also for the whole world, unbelievers (e.g. 1 John 3:1, 13; 4:5; 5:19). MacArthur speaks against this and says the "atonement was made only for those who believe."

1 John uses the term "whole world" one other time, and in this instance it is clear it means literally the whole world of the ungodly in contrast to believers, just as it is used in 1 John 2:2.

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. (1 John 5:19)

"We know that we are of God" equals believers, "and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" equals unbelievers.

MacArthur's limited atonement lie can also be seen in this same MacArthur Study Bible on page 1576 for John 1:29, on page 1741 for 1 Corinthians 8:11, on page 1772 for 2 Corinthians 5:19, on page 1863 for 1 Timothy 2:6, on page 1899 for Hebrews 2:9, and on page 1955 for 2 Peter 2:1.

III. Directly Against The Word

Several times in this study Bible MacArthur is found speaking directly against the written revelation of God. For example, in the footnote for Deuteronomy 21:15-17 MacArthur writes,

21:15-17 has two wives. In the original, the words are rendered "has had two wives," referring to events that have already taken place, evidently intimating that one wife is dead and another has taken her place. Moses, then, is not legislating on a polygamous case where a man has two wives at the same time, but on that of a man who has married twice in succession. [bold added]

The text says nothing of any death of a spouse, but MacArthur adds this to the text (Proverbs 30:6). Read the text for yourself. Also, MacArthur lies about "the original." There is no tense distinction in the Hebrew language ("the original") between "has" and "has had," nor is there anything in the context that would justify such a translation. MacArthur speaks not the truth.

The verb representing the "has" or "has had" that MacArthur is referring to is simply an imperfect third feminine plural verb for "to be" (tihyeyna), and there is no tense distinction in this verb (between "has" or "has had"), nor does the context justify any such distinction. MacArthur either just made this up, or he is promoting someone else's lie. Either way, it is not true.

In this passage Moses is legislating on a polygamous case where a man has two wives, one is loved, the other is unloved. MacArthur adds a death to the text, lies about the original, and denies the very words of Scripture. [For more on polygamy, see our report.]

Joshua 5:13-15

MacArthur writes,

5:13-15 Commander. The Lord Jesus Christ (6:2; cf. 5:15 with Ex. 3:2, 5) in a pre-incarnate appearance (Christophany). He came as the Angel (Messenger) of the Lord, as if He were a man (cf. the one of 3 ³angels,² Gen. 18).

The text does not say that He came "as if He were a man," but rather, "a Man stood opposite him" (Joshua 5:13). The Lord was (and is) a Man, even back then (Exodus 15:3; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; 13:7; John 6:62; 1 Corinthians 15:47; Hebrews 13:8).



Psalm 14:1 - What Is A Fool?

MacArthur writes,

14:1 The fool. In the Bible, this designation carries moral rather than intellectual meaning (Isaiah 32:6).

This is a lie. God calls men fools for a reason! In Scripture, "fool" has both a moral and intellectual meaning. In fact, the very passage that MacArthur is commenting on reveals this. For when ungodly men say in their hearts, "There is no God" (Psalm 14:1-3), they reveal that they are both morally and intellectually bankrupt (Psalm 19:1-6). It is no wonder Ecclesiastes 9:3 says,

Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

For a few other verses denoting both moral and intellectual foolishness, please note the following:

A man devoid of understanding [i.e. a fool] shakes hands in a pledge, and becomes surety for his friend. (Proverbs 17:18)

A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own heart. (Proverbs 18:2)

Wisdom is too lofty for a fool; he does not open his mouth in the gate. (Proverbs 24:7)

He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but whoever walks wisely will be delivered. (Proverbs 28:26)

A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. (Proverbs 29:11; see also Proverbs 24:30-34; Psalm 92:5-7)

Ecclesiastes 2:14 - So, What Is A Fool?

MacArthur's footnote for Ecclesiastes 2:14 is similar.

2:14 fool walks in darkness. The fool is not one who is mentally deficient, but is morally bankrupt. It is not that he cannot learn wisdom, but that he won't.

The truth is, it is all of the above. The fool is mentally deficient, cannot learn wisdom, and won't. As Proverbs says,

Why is there in the hand of a fool the purchase price of wisdom, since he has no heart for it? (Proverbs 17:16)

Though you grind a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his foolishness will not depart from him. (Proverbs 27:22)

The only hope for a fool is the salvation of God (Proverbs 8:5), as Jesus said regarding salvation, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible" (Mark 10:27). So it is with the fool. He cannot learn wisdom and will not learn wisdom, until God does a miracle and makes him no longer a fool (Ephesians 2:1-10; Titus 3:3-7).

Furthermore, it is a lie to say that a "fool is not one who is mentally deficient." It is true that someone can be a fool, and yet be able to acquire and retain a great deal of information (Isaiah 44:25). Someone may very well be an "Einstein," but if they deny God (Psalm 14:1-3), they are nonetheless seriously mentally deficient. The one who is without God (i.e. a fool, Psalm 14:1-3) has a debased mind (Romans 1:28) and a darkened understanding (Ephesians 4:18). He might acquire facts, perhaps, but he is nonetheless devoid of understanding and stupid (Proverbs 30:2-4), as he denies the most basic fact of reality that makes any other fact a fact; and that is God, who upholds "all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3) and "by whom are all things" (Hebrews 2:10). As the Lord testifies in Psalm 94:8-11,

Understand, you senseless among the people; and you fools, when will you be wise? He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct, He who teaches man knowledge? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile.

This futility includes the thoughts of the worldly "wise." As Paul wrote, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile" (1 Corinthians 3:20). "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Corinthians 3:19). Why? Because no matter how great the knowledge, if you take God out of the picture, you're a fool who cannot even see that He who planted the ear, can hear; and He who formed the eye, can see. This makes for a serious case of mental deficiency!

Psalm 19:9

MacArthur's footnote says,

19:9 fear. This is not technically a word for the Word, but it does reflect the reality that Scripture is the manual for worship of God.

MacArthur denies the very truth Psalm 19:9 reveals. Sandwiched in the context of words that describe the Word of God, i.e. law of the Lord, testimony of the Lord, statues of the Lord, commandments of the Lord, and judgments of the Lord, we have the fear of the Lord. Psalm 19:9 reveals the truth that MacArthur attempts to dissuade his readers from seeing; that is, that the fear of the Lord is indeed a term used for the Word of God. Proverbs 15:33 also substantiates this truth.

The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom, and before honor is humility. (Proverbs 15:33)

The fear of the Lord equals (is) the instruction of wisdom. The instruction of wisdom equals the word of God (Job 22:22; 36:10; Psalm 50:17; Proverbs 1:2-3; 4:10-13; 6:23; 8:33-36; 10:17; 19:27; Jeremiah 17:21-23; 32:33; 35:13; Zephaniah 3:7; 2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, the fear of the Lord equals (is) the word of God (Psalm 19:9).

Isaiah 63:17

MacArthur's footnote reads,

63:17 made us stray . . . hardened our heart. The sense is that God allowed them to stray and be burdened in their hearts.

MacArthur lies and speaks directly against the prophet's words. Isaiah does not say, "Why have you allowed us to stray and be burdened in our hearts." Isaiah says,

O Lord, why have You made us stray from Your ways, and hardened our heart from Your fear? (Isaiah 63:17)


Isaiah does not ask if He has made them stray, but why He made them stray and hardened their heart. This is an awesome verse, and MacArthur perverts it to his own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).


Ezekiel 18:24

Ezekiel 18:24 says,

But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

MacArthur comments,

18:24 a righteous man turns. The next scenario is a righteous man turning to a life of sin. His former, apparent righteousness was not genuine (cf. 1 John 2:19), and God did not remember it as a valid expression of faith.

MacArthur makes God out to be a liar. God says, "when a righteous man . . .," not a fake righteous man.

Ezekiel 33:12-20

Therefore you, O son of man, say to the children of your people: "The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall because of it in the day that he turns from his wickedness; nor shall the righteous be able to live because of his righteousness in the day that he sins." When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. Again, when I say to the wicked, "You shall surely die," if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live. (Ezekiel 33:12-16)

MacArthur's footnote for these verses reads,

33:12-20 See notes on 18:19-29. One of the basic principles of God's dealing with His people is presented here: judgment is according to personal faith and conduct. The discussion is not about eternal salvation and eternal death, but physical death in judgment for sin which, for believers, could not result in eternal death. The righteous behavior in v. 15 could only characterize a true believer, who was faithful from the heart. There is no distinction made as to the matter of who is a true believer in God. There is only a discussion of the issue of behavior as a factor in physical death. For those who were apostate idolaters, physical death would lead to eternal death. For believers who were lovers of the true God, their sin would lead only to physical punishment (cf. 1 Cor. 11:28-31; 1 John 5:16,17). "Righteous" and "wicked" are terms describing behavior, not one's position before God. [bold added]

MacArthur's last sentence is a damning lie. It turns the grace of God into lewdness and basically says the opposite of 1 Corinthians 6:9; that is, that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. MacArthur says these "righteous" who turn from righteousness will still have eternal life. This is a lie, because the text says "none of his righteous works shall be remembered." (Ezekiel 33:13). On the day of judgment, men are going to be judged according to their works (Matthew 12:36-37; 25:31-46; Romans 2:6-10; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7-8). If none of his righteous works are remembered, all he has left to be judged on is his iniquity. Likewise, for the wicked who turn from their wickedness it says, "None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him." Therefore, all that is left for him on the day of judgment is his good deeds (John 5:28-29). "Righteous" and "wicked" are indeed terms that describe one's position before God (e.g. Psalm 37:37-40).

Hosea

On page 1252 under "Interpretive Challenges" MacArthur writes,

Second, what are the moral implications of God's command for Hosea to marry a prostitute? It appears best to see Gomer as chaste at the time of marriage to Hosea, only later having become an immoral woman. The words "take yourself a wife of harlotry" are to be understood proleptically, i.e., looking to the future. An immoral woman could not serve as a picture of Israel coming out of Egypt (2:19; 9:10), who then later wandered away from God (11:1). Chapter 3 describes Hosea taking back his wife, who had been rejected because of adultery, a rejection that was unjustifiable if Hosea had married a prostitute with full knowledge of her character.

Here again, MacArthur encourages people away from taking their Bibles and simply believing what it says. God said to Hosea,

Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry, for the land has committed great harlotry by departing from the Lord. (Hosea 1:2)

If you believe the Word, it is clear God told Hosea to "Go, take . . . a wife of harlotry."

Matthew 6:15 - Forgiveness

Jesus gives a very serious warning in Matthew 6:15. The kind of warning that will make an eternal difference, heaven or hell, for those who take heed and those who do not. MacArthur, in his wickedness (2 Peter 2:1; Titus 1:16), completely denies Christ's words. MacArthur writes,

6:15 neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. This is not to suggest that God will withdraw justification from those who have already received the free pardon He extends to all believers. [p. 1403]

This is a damning lie. When Jesus said, "if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matthew 6:15), He meant it! If the Father does not forgive your sins, you will be among those to whom people "shall go forth and look." As Isaiah 66:24 says,

And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, and their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

This is the inheritance of those whose sins have not been forgiven by the Father ("who have transgressed against Me"). Yet, despite Jesus' serious warning, MacArthur piles on the deceit and says,

Forgiveness in that sense - a permanent and complete acquittal from the guilt and ultimate penalty of sin - belongs to all who are in Christ (cf. John 5:24; Rom. 8:1; Eph. 1:7). Yet, Scripture also teaches that God chastens His children who disobey (Heb. 12:5-7). Believers are to confess their sins in order to obtain a day-to-day cleansing (1 John 1:9). This sort of forgiveness is a simple washing from the worldly defilements of sin; not a repeat of the wholesale cleansing from sin's corruption that comes with justification. It is like a washing of the feet rather than a bath (cf. John 13:10). Forgiveness in this latter sense is what God threatens to withhold from Christians who refuse to forgive others (cf. 18:23-35). [p. 1403, bold added]

In the above quote, MacArthur continues to deny the words of Christ. MacArthur cites 1 John 1:9, but this is for those who walk in the light (1 John 1:7). If someone refuses to forgive others, they are walking in darkness, and they reveal they do not know God, even though they may claim otherwise (1 John 1:6; 2:4). Moreover, MacArthur claims that a "wholesale cleansing from sin's corruption that comes with justification" is not taken away. The very passage he cites (Matthew 18:23-35) reveals that it is.

Matthew 18:21-35

Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, 'Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!' So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?' And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him." (Matthew 18:21-34)

Here we have a man who was forgiven, but because he did not forgive others, his forgiveness is taken away. MacArthur writes concerning this passage,

torturers. Not executioners. This pictures severe discipline, not final condemnation. [p. 1427]

Here again, MacArthur denies the words of Christ. Christ's whole point is that of final condemnation. The master calls the servant a wicked servant ("You wicked servant!" Matthew 18:32). The wicked go to hell (Psalm 11:6; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Peter 4:17-18; Revelation 20:11-15). Moreover, the master delivered "him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him." This is a picture of hell, not only in the torment (e.g. Revelation 14:11; 20:10), but in the fact that the man is in no position to ever pay anything back. He's being tortured!

MacArthur works more deceit and writes,

all that was due him. The original debt was unpayable and the man still without resources. So it seems unlikely that the slave was saddled once again with the same debt he had already been forgiven. Rather, what he now owed his master would be exacted in chastening by his master until he was willing to forgive others. [ibid.]

MacArthur continues to speak against Christ. The original debt is the only debt and obligation that is in view. Furthermore, MacArthur adds his own idea and speaks of "until he was willing to forgive others." This is nowhere in the text. MacArthur makes this up and denies Christ who says, "until he should pay all that was due to him." The fearful fact is, he will never be able to pay. In other words, he will be tortured forever! So Christ says,

So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses. (Matthew 18:35)

John 14:28

Another example where MacArthur speaks against God's Word can be found in his footnote for John 14:28. John 14:28 says,

You have heard Me say to you, "I am going away and coming back to you." If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, "I am going to the Father," for My Father is greater than I.

MacArthur writes,

14:28 greater than I. He was not admitting inferiority to the Father (after claiming equality repeatedly, see note on vv. 7-11), but was saying that if the disciples loved Him, they would not be reluctant to let Him go to the Father . . . [bold added]

When Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I" He meant what He said. He was indeed "admitting inferiority to the Father." MacArthur confuses this with Christ's equality, but both are true, just as Christ can be God and with God at the same time (John 1:1). Here again, MacArthur encourages people away from "His unchanging truth" unto MacArthur's worthless rhetoric.

John 15:2

In his footnote on John 15:2 MacArthur writes,

15:2 He takes away. The picture is the vinedresser (i.e., the Father) getting rid of dead wood so that the living, fruit bearing branches may be sharply distinguished. The is a picture of apostate Christians who never genuinely believed and will be taken away in judgment (v.6; Matt. 7:16; Eph. 2:10); the transforming life of Christ has never pulsated within them (8:31, 32; cf. Matt. 13:18-23; 24:12; Heb. 3:14-19; 6:4-8; 10:27-31; 1 John 2:19; 2 John 9). [bold added]

MacArthur lies again. In John 15:1-6 Jesus was speaking of people who are "in Him" (i.e. in Christ). Paul said,

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

In his footnote for 2 Corinthians 5:17 MacArthur acknowledges the significance of the words "in Christ" noting,

5:17 in Christ. These two words comprise a brief but most profound statement of the inexhaustible significance of the believer's redemption, . . .

MacArthur acknowledges the "profound statement" of "in Christ" in 2 Corinthians 5:17, but not in John 15. The truth is, if someone is "in Christ" they have believed and "the transforming life of Christ" has "pulsated within them" (2 Corinthians 5:17). MacArthur denies this, and he denies Jesus' words in John 15:1-6 when Christ says, "Every branch in Me." Jesus' warning applies to those who are "in Him," not those who simply claim to be. Here again, MacArthur diverts people away from the hard core truth of the Word of God.

Acts 22:2

A very strange example of speaking directly against the written Word can be found in the footnote for Acts 22:2. MacArthur writes,

22:2 Hebrew language. Aramaic, the language commonly spoken in Palestine (cf. 2 Kin. 18:26; Is 36:11).

Acts 22:2 says,

And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent.

The very verses MacArthur cites (2 Kings 18:26 & Isaiah 36:11) show that Hebrew is not the same as Aramaic. They are two different languages. Yet, MacArthur denies the plain text of Scripture. When the text says, "Hebrew language," MacArthur says, "Aramaic."

Romans 9:22

On page 1711 MacArthur writes,

prepared for destruction. By their own rejection of Him. God does not make men sinful, but He leaves them in the sin they have chosen (see note on v. 18).

Romans 9:22 is speaking of vessels of wrath that where created by God (Romans 9:21; Proverbs 16:4; Psalm 92:5-7) "prepared for destruction." Who "prepared" them for destruction? God (Romans 9:21)! MacArthur speaks directly against the truth of Romans 9:22 and diverts people away from the true gospel of God (Romans 1:16-11:36).

2 Corinthians 5:11 - The Fear Of The Lord

On page 1771 MacArthur writes,

5:11 the terror of the Lord. This is more clearly rendered, "the fear of the Lord." It is not referring to being afraid, but to Paul's worshipful reverence for God as his essential motivation . . .

Here again, MacArthur denies the plain text. What Paul calls "terror" (or "fear") MacArthur calls "not referring to being afraid." In other words, MacArthur is giving the message, "Don't believe God's Word, believe me," like the serpent of old who said, "You shall not surely die" (Genesis 3:4).

2 Corinthians 12:2

On page 1783 MacArthur denies the words of Paul who said,

Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities. (2 Corinthians 12:5)

MacArthur comments on the man to whom Paul referred saying,

12:2 a man in Christ. Though Paul's reluctance to boast caused him to refer to himself in the third person, the context makes it obvious that he was speaking about himself; relating the experience of another man would hardly have enhanced Paul's apostolic credentials.

MacArthur makes Paul out to be a liar, because Paul plainly said, "Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast." Paul was speaking of another man, not himself.

1 Thessalonians 5:2

On page 1849 MacArthur comments on 1 Thessalonians 5:2 saying,

a thief in the night. This phrase is never used to refer to the rapture of the church.

Here is another lie and another statement that goes directly against the text. The very passage MacArthur comments on is the very passage that speaks of the "rapture" (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17). MacArthur states that there is a "change of topics" from chapter 4 to chapter 5 (see his footnote for 5:1), but this also is a lie. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and following Paul addresses the reality of the "rapture", and then in 1 Thessalonians 5:1 and following he addresses the timing of this event. MacArthur separates the Day of the Lord from being "caught up together" (1 Thessalonians 4:17), and dissuades people away from the truth.

1 Thessalonians 5:23

On page 1850 MacArthur comments,

whole spirit, soul, and body. This comprehensive reference makes the term "completely" more emphatic. By using spirit and soul, Paul was not indicating that the immaterial part of man could be divided into two substances (cf. Heb. 4:12). The two words are used interchangeably throughout Scripture (cf. Heb. 6:19; 10:39; 1 Pet. 2:11; 2 Pet. 2:8). There can be no division of these realities, but rather they are used as other texts use multiple terms for emphasis (cf. Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Nor was Paul a believer in a 3-part human composition (cf. Rom. 8:10; 1 Cor. 3:11; 5:3-5; 7:34; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 6:18; Col. 2:5; 2 Tim. 4:22), but rather two parts; material and immaterial. [bold added]

MacArthur speaks the exact opposite of the words of God. The very reference MacArthur gives, Hebrews 4:12, reveals a division of the soul and spirit is possible.

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

The Word of God reveals both a soul and a spirit in man, being two of the three parts of man (1 Thessalonians 5:2). Here again, MacArthur encourages people away from "His unchanging truth."

Hebrews 7:3 - Melchizedek

MacArthur writes,

7:3 The Levitical priesthood was hereditary, but Melchizedek's was not. His parentage and origin are unknown because they were irrelevant to his priesthood. Contrary to some interpretations, Melchizedek did have a father and a mother. The ancient Syriac Peshitta gives a more accurate translation for what was intended by the Gr. phrase: "whose father and mother are not written in genealogies." No record existed of Melchizedek's birth or death. [bold added]

MacArthur lies against the Words of God. Please note Hebrews 7:3. Speaking of Melchizedek, God says that he was,

without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

MacArthur says Melchizedek had a father and a mother. God says he did not ("without father, without mother"). MacArthur intimates that he had a birth and a death. God says that he has "neither beginning of days nor end of life," and "that he lives." (Hebrews 7:8). MacArthur says that "His parentage and origin are unknown." God says these are known; that is, there is no parentage and his origin is from eternity past ("neither beginning of days").

In this footnote MacArthur continues with,

like. Lit. "made to be like"; this word is used nowhere else in the NT. The implication is that the resemblance to Christ rests upon the way Melchizedek's history is reported in the OT, not upon Melchizedek himself. [underlining added]

MacArthur lies here again. The very next verse says, "Now consider how great this man was, . . . ." The "resemblance" is about Melchizedek himself. Instead of taking the Bible for exactly what it says, MacArthur diverts people away from such child like faith (Matthew 18:3).

1 Peter 2:8

MacArthur writes,

they also were appointed. These were not appointed by God to disobedience and unbelief. Rather, these were appointed to doom because of their disobedience and unbelief.

MacArthur speaks directly against God's Word (Jesus, John 14:6; Hebrews 4:12). Note 1 Peter 2:8.

and "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Nowhere in the context is "doom" discussed, but rather, disobedience. It is disobedience to which they were appointed. No doubt, they were appointed to doom as well (Psalm 92:5-7; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 9:22), but MacArthur again dissuades from "His unchanging truth" and denies the words of the Creator.

2 Peter 3:9

MacArthur's footnote says,

Those who do perish and go to hell, go because they are depraved and worthy only of hell and have rejected the only remedy, Jesus Christ, not because they were created for hell and predetermined to go there.

MacArthur speaks directly against Psalm 92:5-7; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 9:6-22; and Romans 11:36. Both are true. People perish because they are worthy of hell, and because God has made them vessels of wrath (Proverbs 16:4) "prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22).

IV. Adds To The Word

Proverbs 30:5-6 says,

Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

MacArthur breaches this command several times over and is found to be a liar before the Word of God. For example, MacArthur's footnote for Genesis 16:3 reads,

Abram, ignoring divine reaction and assurance in response to his earlier attempt to appoint an heir (cf. 15:2-5), sinfully yielded to Sarai's insistence, and Ishmael was born (v.15).

First, MacArthur slanders (2 Timothy 3:3) Abram by saying he ignored divine reaction, when Scripture says no such thing. Second, MacArthur wrongly claims Abram attempted to appoint an heir in Genesis 15:2-5. Abram did no such thing. In Genesis 15:2-5 Abram bemoans that Eliezer is his heir. Third, MacArthur slanders Abram by saying he "sinfully yielded" to Sarai's request, when Scripture never identifies such an act as sinful. And finally, MacArthur adds to the word of God by calling Sarai's request an "insistence" which it was not. It was a simple request (Genesis 16:2). MacArthur is all twisted up on this verse (2 Peter 3:16).

Another example can be found in Deuteronomy 23:18 where Scripture says,

You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the Lord your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy indicates a dog was something that may be bought or sold ("the price of a dog"). Yet, MacArthur is blind to this simple truth and perverts this passage saying,

23:17,18 Prostitution as a form of worship was forbidden. "Dog" was a reference to male prostitutes (cf. Rev. 22:15).

Neither Revelation 22:15 nor any other Scripture bears witness that the term dog was a reference to a male prostitute. The term dog is indeed used in Scripture for wicked people (e.g. 2 Samuel 9:8; 16:9; Psalm 22:16; Proverbs 26:11; Isaiah 56:10-11; Matthew 7:6; 15:26-27; Mark 7:27-28; Philippians 3:2; Revelation 22:15), but it is never used specifically for male prostitutes, not even in the verse MacArthur cites to support his claim (Revelation 22:15).

Judges 11:31 - Slander

On page 352 MacArthur slanders Jephthah by saying,

11:31 I will offer it. Some interpreters reason that Jephthah offered his daughter as a living sacrifice in perpetual virginity. With this idea, v. 31 is made to mean "shall surely be the Lord's" or "I will offer it up as a burnt offering." The view sees only perpetual virginity in vv. 37-40, and rejects his offering a human sacrifice as being against God's revealed will (Deut. 12:31). On the other hand, since he was 1) beyond the Jordan, 2) far from the tabernacle, 3) a hypocrite in religious devotion, 4) familiar with human sacrifice among other nations, 5) influenced by such superstition, and 6) wanting victory badly, he likely meant a burnt offering. [bold added]

MacArthur slanders Jephthah and adds to the Word of God by saying Jephthah was "a hypocrite in religious devotion." Hebrews 11:32 proclaims Jephthah to be a man of faith, not a hypocrite. Moreover, MacArthur depicts that Jephthah was planning on sacrificing his daughter when he made his vow. On the contrary, the text reveals just the opposite. Judges 11:34-35 manifest that Jephthah was not expecting his daughter to be "whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me" (Judges 11:31). When Jephthah came to his house and saw his daughter coming out to meet him, he tore his clothes and was brought "very low" (Judges 11:35).

2 Kings 5:16 - MacArthur's "Insight"

MacArthur conjures up his own "truth" and writes,

5:16 he refused. To show that he was not driven by the mercenary motives of pagan priests and prophets, Elisha, though accepting gifts on other occasions (cf. 4:42), declined them here so the Syrians would see the honor of God only.

Scripture never says any such thing, yet MacArthur adds to God's Word and gives his opinion as if it were fact. Moreover, the one reference that he gives where Elisha accepted gifts (2 Kings 4:42) is where Elisha accepted gifts for the people that they might eat (2 Kings 4:42-44).

2 Kings 5:17

Similarly, MacArthur writes for the next verse,

5:17 two mule-loads of earth. In the ancient Near East it was thought that a god could be worshipped only on the soil of the nation to which he was bound. Therefore, Naaman wanted a load of Israelite soil on which to make burnt offerings and sacrifices to the Lord when he returned to Damascus.

God never says exactly why Naaman took these two mule-loads of earth, but, not content with that, MacArthur adds his opinion and adds to the Word of God (Proverbs 4:20-27; 30:6).

2 Kings 5:27

MacArthur writes,

5:27 leprosy . . . shall cling to you. Gehazi's greed had cast a shadow over the integrity of Elisha's prophetic office.

The Scripture nowhere says that "Gehazi's greed had cast a shadow over the integrity of Elisha's prophetic office." MacArthur just makes this up (or borrowed it from another) and adds to the Word of God (Proverbs 30:6).

2 Kings 17:7-23

MacArthur writes,

17:7-23 In these verses, the writer departs from quoting his written sources and gives his own explanation for the captivity of Israel.

Written sources? What written sources? The text says nothing about quoting any written sources. Nonetheless, even though it is not contained in Scripture, MacArthur adds this idea anyway.

2 Kings 23:25 - Slander

MacArthur writes,

23:25 no king like him. Of all the kings in David's line, including David himself, no king more closely approximated the royal ideal of Deut. 17:14-20 than Josiah (cf. Matt. 22:37). Yet, even Josiah fell short of complete obedience because he had multiple wives (cf. vv. 31, 36; see note on Gen. 2:24).

MacArthur lies and slanders Josiah when he says "Josiah fell short . . . because he had multiple wives." There are only two wives recorded (2 Kings 23:31, 36), and this is not multiple wives. Solomon had multiple wives (2 Kings 11:1-11), but not Josiah. King David had far more wives than Josiah (e.g. 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 12:11; 15:16; 16:21-22; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9) and the Lord never condemned him or accused him of having multiple wives. Actually, the Lord said that David "had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (1 Kings 15:5), and one of the things the Lord commanded David was not to multiply wives to himself (Deuteronomy 17:17). David had at least 8 wives and ten concubines (2 Samuel 3:14; 15:16; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9). The Lord did not consider such a number of wives and concubines a breach of His commandment found in Deuteronomy 17:17.

Nehemiah 7:5-6

MacArthur writes,

7:5b,6 I found a register. Nehemiah discovered a register of the people made by Ezra in Babylon before the first group returned, a listing of people who had come with Zerubbabel. [bold added]

MacArthur adds to Nehemiah saying that he found a register "made by Ezra." Nehemiah does not say this, and the list Nehemiah found does not match the list in Ezra (Ezra 2). Despite these facts, MacArthur adds to the Word and says the list was "made by Ezra," even though he knows the list in Ezra does not match the list in Nehemiah (see his footnote for Ezra 2:64, 65, p. 643).

Job 3:1

On page 699 MacArthur writes in the context of Job cursing the day of his birth,

He felt it would have been better to have never lived than to suffer like that; better to have never had wealth than to lose it; better to have never had children than to have them killed. [bold added]

Job says nothing in his curse, or the rest of the book, about "better to have never had wealth" or "better to have never had children." In fact, Job had lost all his wealth and children in one day and this was his response:

Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped. And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."

It was not until Job was severely tormented in his flesh (Job 2:1-13), then he cursed the day of his birth and wished he had never been born. Certainly, Job was sorrowful for the loss of his children and all the turmoil God had brought upon him (Job 29:2-6), but MacArthur adds words to the words of Job and makes him out to have a perspective that Scripture never attributes to him.

Proverbs 26:17 - Wild Dogs

MacArthur writes,

26:17 meddles . . . dog by the ears. The dog was not domesticated in Palestine and thus to grab any dog was dangerous.

MacArthur's statement is a another lie. Scripture bears witness to the fact that dogs were domesticated. In Job 30:1 Job says,

But now they mock at me, men younger than I, whose fathers I disdained to put with the dogs of my flock.

Moreover, 1 Kings 22:38 appears to picture domesticated dogs, and Matthew 15:27; Mark 7:28; and Luke 16:21 all depict domesticated dogs in "Palestine".

Ecclesiastes 3:21

MacArthur writes,

3:21 the spirit. Man's breath or physical life appears on the surface to be little different than that of an animal. In reality, man's soul differs in that God has made him eternal (cf. v. 11).

MacArthur adds to the word of God by saying man differs from animals "in that God has made him [i.e. man] eternal." Scripture never teaches this. The verse MacArthur gives (v. 11) says nothing about an animal's eternality or lack thereof. Who says animals are not eternal also? MacArthur does, but he is a deceiver. We know they have a soul like man does. Genesis 1:20, 21, 24; & 2:7 use the same Hebrew phrase, Nephesh hayyah, which is literally "living soul" for both man and animals, and we know they also have a spirit (Ecclesiastes 3:21). Are they also eternally existing creatures? God knows.

Ecclesiastes 12:12

MacArthur writes,

12:12 books. Books written on any other subject than God's revealed wisdom will only proliferate the uselessness of man's thinking.

Ecclesiastes is not talking just about books "on any other subject," nor is it talking about "the uselessness of man's thinking." MacArthur adds these ideas and pushes the truth of the matter away. The truth is,

And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh. (Ecclesiastes 12:12)

There is no end to the making of many books. We see this in our day, particularly in the "Christian" arena. And, much study is wearisome to the flesh. Those who study much will experience this.

2 Corinthians 6:1

MacArthur writes,

6:1 to receive the grace of God in vain. Most of the Corinthians were saved but hindered by legalistic teaching regarding sanctification (see notes on 11:3; Gal. 6:1). Some were not truly saved but deceived by a gospel of works (cf. 13:5; Gal.5:4), which was being taught by the false teachers. [bold added]

Neither first nor second Corinthians addresses a "legalistic teaching regarding sanctification" or a "gospel of works." The references MacArthur gives (11:3 & 13:5) say no such thing, and the verses in Galatians (Gal. 6:1 & 5:4) were to the churches in Galatia (Galatians 1:2). This is a strange misuse of Scripture, because MacArthur should know, his map in the back of the Bible reveals, that Corinth was not in Galatia.

Colossians 3:22

On page 1839 MacArthur comments on Colossians 3:22-4:1 which gives instructions to slaves and masters. Instead of simply taking God's Word as it is, MacArthur adds,

Paul upholds the duties of slave and master, of which the modern parallel is the duties of employee and employer.

This is a lie. The modern parallel to this passage is a slave and master relation, not an employee and employer relationship. MacArthur writes as if Paul was ignorant of such "modern" inventions. There were employee and employer relationships back then (e.g. Leviticus 19:13; 25:6; 2 Chronicles 24:12; Job 7:1-2; 14:6; Matthew 20:1-15). This is nothing new. If Paul wanted to address the employee/employer relationship he could have done so. But, to pervert this passage and make it out to be parallel to employee/employer relationships is not only adding to the Word, but it creates deception and faulty counsel. For example, an employee is not obligated to "obey in all things" (Colossians 3:22) their employer. If an employee does not want to do something, the employee has the freedom to quit the job. A slave has no such freedom.

2 Peter 2:3

MacArthur writes,

2:3 By covetousness. That is, uncontrolled greed.

MacArthur adds his own idea to the text by calling the false teacher's covetousness, "uncontrolled greed." 2 Peter 2:14 says that false teachers have "a heart trained in covetous practices." Their greed could be quite controlled and crafty, as MacArthur's is. You'll pay good money for his study Bible, especially the leather cover edition.

Jude 6

MacArthur writes,

6 angels . . . did not keep. This apostasy of fallen angels is described in Gen.6:1-3 as possessing men who then cohabited with women. See note on 2 Pet. 2:4.

In his footnote for 2 Peter 2:4 he writes,

the angels who sinned. These angels, according to Jude 6, "did not keep their proper domain," i.e. they entered men who promiscuously cohabited with women.

Neither Genesis 6:1-3, 2 Peter 2:4, nor Jude 6 speak of any angels "possessing men." This is MacArthur's addition to the Word (Proverbs 30:6). Moreover, there would be no need for them to enter men, because angels themselves are identified as men (Genesis 18:1-2; 19:1; Daniel 8:15-16; 9:20-21; 10:5-6; Luke 1:19, 26).

Revelation 9:4

MacArthur writes,

9:4 men who do not have the seal of God. Everyone on earth except the two groups mentioned in chap. 7 - the 144,000 Jewish evangelists and their converts (see note on 7:3).

Revelation 7 gives only one group that receives the seal of God, and that is the Jewish group, the 144,000 (Revelation 7:4). The second group in Revelation 7 is not included in the number that is sealed. With MacArthur's addition (Proverbs 30:6), he blackens out the awesome truth of Revelation 9. The only ones exempt from being tormented by the dreadful locust are the 144,000. The rest of mankind, which would include believers, are subject to this awful curse of the wrath of God. [For other examples of the wrath of God being upon a believer, read Psalm 88; 90:7-12; 102:8-10; Lamentations 3:1-31.]

V. Twists The Word (2 Peter 3:16)

For just a few examples of MacArthur's twisting techniques (besides those already mention above), please note the following:

Luke 22:44 says,

And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

MacArthur writes,

22:44 like great drops of blood. This suggests a dangerous condition known as hematidrosis, the effusion of blood in one¹s perspiration. It can be caused by extreme anguish or physical strain. Subcutaneous capillaries dilate and burst, mingling blood with sweat.

MacArthur missed one very important word in the text, "like." Luke 22:44 does not say, "His sweat became great drops of blood," or "was mixed with blood." It says, "His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

James 1:10

MacArthur writes,

1:10 his humiliation. Refers to the rich believer's being brought low by trials. Such experiences help him rejoice and realize that genuine happiness and contentment depend on the true riches of God's grace, not earthly wealth. [bold added]

MacArthur's first sentence is a lie. The lowly brother (James 1:9) would have trials just as, if not more than, the rich man. The humiliation James 1:10 is talking about is not about trials, but rather the reality of the rich man and his riches. They are "as a flower of the field." So, "he will pass away" (James 1:10).

For no sooner has the sun risen with a burning heat than it withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beautiful appearance perishes. So the rich man also will fade away in his pursuits. (James 1:11)

Riches are not forever (Proverbs 27:24), and this is the "humiliation" of the rich man.

For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. (1 Timothy 6:7)

James 5:19

MacArthur writes,

wanders from the truth. Apostatizes from the faith they once professed (cf. Heb. 5:12-6:9; 10:29; 1 John 2:19). Such people are in grave danger (v. 20), and the church must call them back to the true faith.

MacArthur cites Hebrews 5:12-6:9 and 10:29 which both refer to a person for whom there is no hope. Hebrews 6 says it is impossible to renew them to repentance (Hebrews 6:4-6). Hebrews 10:26-29 says "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." James 5:19-20 addresses someone who is able to be turned back and saved. It does not describe apostasy, like what is found in Hebrews 5:12-6:9 and 10:29, but rather someone who "wanders from the truth. "

Romans 1:18

On page 1693 MacArthur displays his perverted view of God in his footnote on Romans 1:18.

God reveals His wrath in two ways: 1) indirectly, through the natural consequences of violating His universal moral law, 2) directly through His personal intervention . . .

This statement reveals MacArthur does not know the God of the Bible, because, "of Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Romans 11:36). Everything, whether it is His wrath or His lovingkindness (e.g. Psalm 107:1-43), it all is "directly through His personal intervention" (e.g. Psalm 104:1-32). For He upholds "all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3), and He is the one "by whom are all things" (Hebrews 2:10; see also Deuteronomy 32:39; 2 Samuel 2:6-7; Isaiah 45:7; Lamentations 3:37-38; Amos 3:6; Jeremiah 10:23; Proverbs 20:24). "For in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

VI. Conclusion

Finally, on page 1957 in his footnote for 2 Peter 2:17 MacArthur does a good job describing himself.

A well without water would be a major disappointment in a hot and dry land. Likewise, false teachers have a pretense of spiritual water to quench the thirsty soul, but they actually have nothing to give.

The masses are fooled by this false teacher, John MacArthur, but the reality is, he has "nothing to give" (1 Timothy 6:3-5). He is a "well without water" (2 Peter 2:17).

SOURCE (Note: I do not agree with the author's views on salvation, but his work exposing MacArthur is excellent and as such I've posted it here for reference).


Wierz w Pana Jezusa Chrystusa a będziesz zbawiony

Obrazek

cms|skr328|PL50950Wroclaw68

Zapraszam 11-14 luty na wykłady Maxa Billetera na Śląsku LINK: http://skroc.pl/3fb2
Awatar użytkownika
chrześcijanin
Posty: 3451
Rejestracja: 13 cze 2008, 20:24
wyznanie: nie chce podawać
Lokalizacja: okręgi niebiańskie Ef2:6
Gender: None specified
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: chrześcijanin » 27 gru 2008, 21:25

inne mozna znalezc w sieci:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 ... arthur.htm

“It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us” (John MacArthur, D.D., The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Hebrews, Moody, 1983, p. 237).

Zgadzasz sie z tym, ze to nie krew przelana przez Jezusa Chrystusa nas zbawia?
Bez rozlania krwi jest odpuszczenie Twoim zdaniem?
Kim jest nauczyciel, ktory twierdzi inaczej?
bez rozlania krwi nie ma odpuszczenia.
(Hebr. 9:22)

i wiele innych - wystarczy siegnac do dowolnego dziela JFM jr. aby znalezc wiele nieakceptowalnych z Biblijnego punktu widzenia twierdzen.


Wierz w Pana Jezusa Chrystusa a będziesz zbawiony

Obrazek

cms|skr328|PL50950Wroclaw68

Zapraszam 11-14 luty na wykłady Maxa Billetera na Śląsku LINK: http://skroc.pl/3fb2
Awatar użytkownika
fantomik
Posty: 15826
Rejestracja: 20 sty 2008, 15:54
wyznanie: Inne ewangeliczne
Gender: Male
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: fantomik » 27 gru 2008, 21:45

Oczywiście, że bez rozlania krwi nie ma odpuszczenia. Jednak bardzo powszechne w książkach jest twierdzenie, że na krzyżu jedyne co Chrystusa spotkało to owe cielesne zdruzgotanie i że z tegoż powodu Bóg uznał to za wystarczające dla naszego Zbawienia. Innymi słowy -- pomija się (w moim mniemaniu) esencję Zastępczej Ofiary.

Pozdrawiam,
f. (moje dwa grosze)


"Cóż zatem Ateny mają wspólnego z Jerozolimą? Cóż Akademia z Kościołem? Cóż heretycy z chrześcijanami?" — Tertulian
"...ilość nieprawdziwych informacji na temat teologii Kalwina jakie zostały podane jest wystarczająca aby wielokrotnie udowodnić jego doktrynę totalnej deprawacji!" — J.I. Packer
"Take a quiet moment to yourself today. Read a book. Sip a latte. Look out the window. (Then do the same thing, every single day, for the rest of your life.)" — Susan Cain
Nehemiah 8:10: I rzekł im Nehemiasz: Idźcie, spożywajcie potrawy świąteczne i pijcie napoje słodkie - poślijcie też porcje temu, który nic gotowego nie ma: albowiem poświęcony jest ten dzień Panu naszemu. A nie bądźcie przygnębieni, gdyż radość w Panu jest waszą ostoją.
Awatar użytkownika
chrześcijanin
Posty: 3451
Rejestracja: 13 cze 2008, 20:24
wyznanie: nie chce podawać
Lokalizacja: okręgi niebiańskie Ef2:6
Gender: None specified
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: chrześcijanin » 27 gru 2008, 21:47

fantomik pisze:Oczywiście, że bez rozlania krwi nie ma odpuszczenia.

Juz sie szykowalem do odpowiedzi na Twoja poprzednia wersje odpowiedzi (ze moze JFM cos tam...).
Watek krwi proponuje przeniesc do:
http://forum.protestanci.info/viewtopic ... 2435#32435
a watek Lordship Salvation do odpowiedniego dzialu - tu jest miejsce na temat Trojcy


Wierz w Pana Jezusa Chrystusa a będziesz zbawiony

Obrazek

cms|skr328|PL50950Wroclaw68

Zapraszam 11-14 luty na wykłady Maxa Billetera na Śląsku LINK: http://skroc.pl/3fb2
Puritan
Posty: 4672
Rejestracja: 19 maja 2008, 16:04
wyznanie: Kościół Ewangelicznych Chrześcijan
Gender: Male
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: Puritan » 27 gru 2008, 23:02

chrzescijanin pisze:Inni takie powody znajduja - np. herezja Lordship Salvation - czyli zawoalowane zbawienie z uczynkow


Jeśli dla ciebie Lordship Salvation jest herezją, to jesteś chyba jedyną osobą na tym forum która nie jest heretykiem.

Z Wikipedii:
"Lordship salvation is a teaching in Christian theology that maintains good works are a necessary consequence of being declared righteous before God.[1] In other words, Jesus cannot be considered a person's savior (that is, bringer of salvation) without simultaneously being lord of the person's life, which is demonstrated by the gradual purification from sin and the exercising of good works"

- Jest oczywiste, że aby zostać zbawionym należy uznać Jezusa nie tylko za zbawiciela ale również za Pana swojego życia.
- Po nawróceniu MUSI następować wzrost, a jeśli on nie następuje, oznacza to, że osoba nigdy nie była nawrócona.


Awatar użytkownika
chrześcijanin
Posty: 3451
Rejestracja: 13 cze 2008, 20:24
wyznanie: nie chce podawać
Lokalizacja: okręgi niebiańskie Ef2:6
Gender: None specified
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: chrześcijanin » 29 gru 2008, 00:01

ann_in_grace pisze:bedacego wynikiem niezrozumienia przekazu Ewangelii i kisazki "Gospel according to Jesus" Johna Mac'a

John znowu okolo 2 miesiace temu przeslal mi te ksiazke - wiec teza ze minelo 20 lat i ze to niewazne - chyba do Johna nie dotarla.
Zreszta z http://www.swrb.com/ otrzymalem nie tak dawno sporo literatury promujacej owo "Lordship Salvation" dosc agresywnie, wiec Twoja opinia, ze to nieporozumienie sprzed 20 lat - jest teza nadwyrezona. http://www.swrb.com/ to impreza iscie kalwinska (w sensie uwazajaca Jasia C. za bialy charakter a nie za czarny charakter).
Puritan pisze:Jeśli dla ciebie Lordship Salvation jest herezją,

Podalem powody dla ktorych dla innych jest to herezja.
Osobiscie swojego zdania nie przedstawilem - bo sam termin "Lordship Salvation" nie jest dla mnie jasny.
W kazdym razie - jesli przeciwnicy Lordship Salvation, slusznie wskazuja, ze Lordship Salvation znaczy ze aby byc zbawionym trzeba cos wiecej niz Ofiara Jezusa Chrystusa - to nie jestem zwolennikiem Lordship Salvation, bo to jest falszywa ewangelia.
A straszenie, ze bylbym w takim ukladzie 'jedyny' - nie robi na mnie wrazenia, lepiej w osamotnieniu byc po stronie Boga niz w tlumach towarzyszy - bez Boga sie mylic.


Wierz w Pana Jezusa Chrystusa a będziesz zbawiony

Obrazek

cms|skr328|PL50950Wroclaw68

Zapraszam 11-14 luty na wykłady Maxa Billetera na Śląsku LINK: http://skroc.pl/3fb2
Awatar użytkownika
fantomik
Posty: 15826
Rejestracja: 20 sty 2008, 15:54
wyznanie: Inne ewangeliczne
Gender: Male
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: fantomik » 29 gru 2008, 00:07

chrzescijanin pisze:[...]W kazdym razie - jesli przeciwnicy Lordship Salvation, slusznie wskazuja, ze Lordship Salvation znaczy ze aby byc zbawionym trzeba cos wiecej niz Ofiara Jezusa Chrystusa

Nie znaczy. Jednak nie znaczy też, że aby być Zbawionym wystarczy tylko jakaś "modlitwa grzesznika", która zamie Ci 5 minut ;-) Do Zbawienia jest potrzebne dzieło Nowego Stworzenia, które czyni Bóg Ojciec przez Ducha Świętego. Niezbędne jest Nowe Narodzenie (a bynajmniej nie objawia się ono "mówieniem językami", ale wiem, że Tobie tego tłumaczyć nie muszę). O tym jest Lordship Salvation, a osoby tą prawdę odrzucające, według mnie, w ogóle nie rozumieją Ewangelii (co nie oznacza, że nie mogą być Zbawieni -- gdyż jeśli są, to po prostu jeszcze nie otrzymali widać tej części poznania).

Pozdrawiam,
f. (moje dwa grosze)


"Cóż zatem Ateny mają wspólnego z Jerozolimą? Cóż Akademia z Kościołem? Cóż heretycy z chrześcijanami?" — Tertulian
"...ilość nieprawdziwych informacji na temat teologii Kalwina jakie zostały podane jest wystarczająca aby wielokrotnie udowodnić jego doktrynę totalnej deprawacji!" — J.I. Packer
"Take a quiet moment to yourself today. Read a book. Sip a latte. Look out the window. (Then do the same thing, every single day, for the rest of your life.)" — Susan Cain
Nehemiah 8:10: I rzekł im Nehemiasz: Idźcie, spożywajcie potrawy świąteczne i pijcie napoje słodkie - poślijcie też porcje temu, który nic gotowego nie ma: albowiem poświęcony jest ten dzień Panu naszemu. A nie bądźcie przygnębieni, gdyż radość w Panu jest waszą ostoją.
Puritan
Posty: 4672
Rejestracja: 19 maja 2008, 16:04
wyznanie: Kościół Ewangelicznych Chrześcijan
Gender: Male
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: Puritan » 29 gru 2008, 10:54

chrzescijanin pisze:A straszenie, ze bylbym w takim ukladzie 'jedyny' - nie robi na mnie wrazenia, lepiej w osamotnieniu byc po stronie Boga niz w tlumach towarzyszy - bez Boga sie mylic.

Przypomniało mi się takie powiedzonko:
"Jak ci jedna osoba mówi, żeś osioł, to to olej; jak dwie osoby, to też olej; ale jak wszyscy to kup se siodło."


Awatar użytkownika
chrześcijanin
Posty: 3451
Rejestracja: 13 cze 2008, 20:24
wyznanie: nie chce podawać
Lokalizacja: okręgi niebiańskie Ef2:6
Gender: None specified
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: chrześcijanin » 29 gru 2008, 19:51

ann_in_grace pisze:Moze bys ja przeczytal?

Przeczytalem juz - wiecej niz jeden raz. Na jakiej podstawie pojawia sie Twoja propozycja?
fantomik pisze:Nie znaczy. Jednak nie znaczy też, że aby być Zbawionym wystarczy tylko jakaś "modlitwa grzesznika", która zamie Ci 5 min

To juz jest nieuczciwe - poniewaz temat 5 minutowej modlitwy po raz ktorys poruszasz Fantomik[u], a jest to poza tematem. Gdy Piotr glosil w dniu Ducha - nie ma dowodu aby choc jeden z kilku tysiecy nawroconych zmawial modlitwe 5minutowa. A jednak kazdy z nich byl zbawiony - raz na zawsze.
fantomik pisze:Do Zbawienia jest potrzebne dzieło Nowego Stworzenia
nie zgadzam sie - efekt juz jest PO zbawieniu a start rownolegle ze zbawieniem (zapoczatkowane - bo nie jest to ewolucja a stworzenie - Tohu Wa Bohu, z niczego - wszystko 100% na raz).
Puritan pisze:Przypomniało mi się takie powiedzonko:
"Jak ci jedna osoba mówi, żeś osioł, to to olej; jak dwie osoby, to też olej; ale jak wszyscy to kup se siodło."
No to stosujac je do siebie - jesli chcesz byc w ramach chrzescijanstwa - musisz koniecznie zostac rzymskim katolikiem, a jesli chcesz byc konsekwentny - to muzulmaninem. Ta uwaga jedynie pokazuje, ze nie o prawde tu chodzi ale aby dobrze wypasc w jak najszerszym towarzystwie klakierow.
Biblia mowi jasno: darmo - z laski, zatem bajki o dodatkach - nie wazne jakich - uwazam za nauke niebiblijna. I tylko z Biblia mozna to zmienic - a nie jak probujesz jedynie argumentami emocjonalnymi. Metodami wplywania na emocje posluguja sie manipulatorzy religijni i za takiego teraz Cie odbieram w tym kontekscie skoro unikasz nauki Biblijnej a jedynie bajki, opowiadania, dowcipy pod moim adresem (zem osiol) - to jedynie ma na mnie wplynac? Smieszne. Znam te numery - bo takie same techniki stosuja wszyscy zwodziciele.
MANIPULACJA


Jedną z najbardziej ohydnych rzeczy w dzisiejszym polskim chrześcijaństwie jest skłonność przywódców nawet najmniejszych grupek do podporządkowywania sobie ludzi w wymiarze emocjonalnym, doktrynalnym, a nawet w kwestiach życia osobistego, decyzji życiowych i sumienia.
"Liderzy" ganią Wielki Babilon i denominacje za zniewalanie ludzi, a sami stosują dokładnie te same metody do przymuszania owiec do posłuszeństwa. Jest to jednak dla wierzących o tyle bardziej dotkliwe, że w "małych grupach" tworzących często "zamknięty światek" relacje z innymi członkami i z "liderem" odgrywają dla wierzących o wiele ważniejszą rolę, niż w 300-osobowym zborze lub bezimiennej parafii katolickiej.

Decydowanie o życiu osobistym.
Takie sprawy jak wybór współmałżonka, wybór miejsca pracy i zamieszkania, decyzja o kupnie samochodu itd. stają się przedmiotem oceny i decyzja o tym co jest właściwe zostaje podjęta przez "lidera" i "grupę". Następnym krokiem jest stwierdzenie, że decyzja ta pochodzi od Boga, więc konieczne jest aby wierzący "nie sprzeciwiał się Duchowi Świętemu" i postąpił właśnie tak jak lider uznaje za słuszne. Jeśli ktoś jest takim nakazom cały czas posłuszny, to chwilowo "nie ma problemu". Gdy jednak zaczyna się wyłamywać jest na niego wywierana presja w postaci cytowania fragmentów Biblii, rzekomo odnoszących się od tej sytuacji, wspominania o odczuciach, snach, lub przekonaniach członków grupy i lidera, a w krańcowej formie - poprzez bezpośrednie "proroctwa" mówiące, coś w Imieniu Pana.

LISTA KONTROLNA:
1. Co by się stało gdybyś postanowił przejść do innej grupy wierzących? Jaka byłaby reakcja lidera? Czy mógłbyś dalej utrzymywać przyjacielskie kontakty z członkami swojej dawnej grupy?
2. Czy liderowi zdarza się przeprosić publicznie zbór, lub któregoś z jego członków za swoje złe postępowanie?
3. Czy zdarza mu się przyznać do błędu w sprawach doktrynalnych?
4. Czy zdarza mu się przyznać do błędu w ocenie jakiejś sytuacji, w postępowaniu z ludźmi?

Odpowiedź negatywna na 2-4 oznaczać może człowieka nadmiernie pewnego siebie, który nie przyjmuje pouczenia.

POSPOLITE SZTUCZKI
Zarzut braku miłości:
Osobom, które zaczynają kwestionować postępowanie "lidera" mówi się, że brak im miłości, że ich postępowanie jest nieczułe, że ranią tym Boga i braci. Celem tego oskarżenia, jest:
. Nakłonienie do zrezygnowania z wyrażania zastrzeżeń
. Wzmocnienie przekonania, że wszelki sprzeciw jest grzeszny z natury, a sprzeciw wobec lidera oznacza sprzeciw wobec Boga
Oczywiście jest to KOMPLETNA BZDURA, ponieważ biblijna miłość NIE polega na przymykaniu oka na grzech. Jezus jest Miłością, ale właśnie On najwięcej mówił ludziom o ich złych czynach, złym sercu i złych motywach. Zwrócenie drugiemu wierzącemu uwagi na to że źle czyni nie jest błędem, ale obowiązkiem chrześcijanina. (Mojż, Ew. Mat.)

Zarzut postępowania wbrew pouczeniu Ducha
Celem jest to, aby wierzący pozbył się zaufania do udzielonego mu przez Pana pomazania (1 Jana) i zaczął uzależniać swoje sumienie i przekonanie o słuszności od osądu zewnętrznego. Nie można bowiem manipulować człowiekiem posiadającym własny, żywy kontakt z JEZUSEM CHRYSTUSEM.

Zarzut odstępstwa i osobistego grzechu
Opornemu mówi się, że jego wątpliwości i zarzuty wynikają z własnego odstępstwa i grzechu. "Masz wątpliwości bo dopuściłeś do swego serca niechęć do braci", jak możesz oskarżać mnie skoro ja tyle pracuję dla Pana, a ty nawet nie przychodzisz na wszystkie spotkania? W ten sposób PRZESUWA się sprawę z konkretnego złego postępowania i dyskusji o tym, czy ono jest faktycznie złe, na domniemany zły stan serca opornego. Zamiast podjąć temat i rozważyć czy dany postępek był zły mówi się, że problem leży w tym, który ośmielił się coś zakwestionować. P.L.
za: http://nt.own.pl/cms/manipulacja.htm


Wierz w Pana Jezusa Chrystusa a będziesz zbawiony

Obrazek

cms|skr328|PL50950Wroclaw68

Zapraszam 11-14 luty na wykłady Maxa Billetera na Śląsku LINK: http://skroc.pl/3fb2
Awatar użytkownika
fantomik
Posty: 15826
Rejestracja: 20 sty 2008, 15:54
wyznanie: Inne ewangeliczne
Gender: Male
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: fantomik » 29 gru 2008, 20:02

chrzescijanin pisze:[...]
fantomik pisze:Nie znaczy. Jednak nie znaczy też, że aby być Zbawionym wystarczy tylko jakaś "modlitwa grzesznika", która zamie Ci 5 min

To juz jest nieuczciwe - poniewaz temat 5 minutowej modlitwy po raz ktorys poruszasz Fantomik, a jest to poza tematem.

Nie jest gdyż artykuł o Lordship Salvation JMC był napisany właśnie przeciw tej herezji na którą wskazałem powyżej.

chrzescijanin pisze:[...]
fantomik pisze:Do Zbawienia jest potrzebne dzieło Nowego Stworzenia
nie zgadzam sie - efekt juz jest PO zbawieniu a start rownolegle ze zbawieniem (zapoczatkowane - bo nie jest to ewolucja a stworzenie - Tohu Wa Bohu, z niczego - wszystko 100% na raz).


2 Kor. 5:17-18 (BW)
17. Tak więc, jeśli ktoś jest w Chrystusie, nowym [u]jest stworzeniem; stare przeminęło, oto wszystko stało się nowe.
18. A wszystko to jest z Boga, który nas pojednał z sobą przez Chrystusa i poruczył nam służbę pojednania,

Jest, a nie "stanie się". Co bynajmniej nie oznacza, że od razu taki człowiek przestaje upadać -- bynajmniej; ale tego też nigdy nie twierdziłem -- efektem stania się Nowym Stworzeniem jest to że człowiek sam z siebie, zgodnie ze swoją nową naturą, będzie się uświęcał -- bo Jego Ojciec jest Święty. Bez Narodzenia Na Nowo nawet ujrzeć Królestwa Bożego nikt nie zdoła. Nie liczy się ani obrzezka ani pięciominutowa modlitwa, ani jakaś szczerość Twojej decyzji -- tylko Nowe Stworzenie, które to jest z Łaski Bożej i dzięki Ofierze Chrystusa.

Pozdrawiam,
f. (moje dwa grosze)


"Cóż zatem Ateny mają wspólnego z Jerozolimą? Cóż Akademia z Kościołem? Cóż heretycy z chrześcijanami?" — Tertulian
"...ilość nieprawdziwych informacji na temat teologii Kalwina jakie zostały podane jest wystarczająca aby wielokrotnie udowodnić jego doktrynę totalnej deprawacji!" — J.I. Packer
"Take a quiet moment to yourself today. Read a book. Sip a latte. Look out the window. (Then do the same thing, every single day, for the rest of your life.)" — Susan Cain
Nehemiah 8:10: I rzekł im Nehemiasz: Idźcie, spożywajcie potrawy świąteczne i pijcie napoje słodkie - poślijcie też porcje temu, który nic gotowego nie ma: albowiem poświęcony jest ten dzień Panu naszemu. A nie bądźcie przygnębieni, gdyż radość w Panu jest waszą ostoją.
Awatar użytkownika
chrześcijanin
Posty: 3451
Rejestracja: 13 cze 2008, 20:24
wyznanie: nie chce podawać
Lokalizacja: okręgi niebiańskie Ef2:6
Gender: None specified
Kontaktowanie:

Postautor: chrześcijanin » 29 gru 2008, 20:28

fantomik pisze:2 Kor. 5:17-18 (BW)
17. Tak więc, jeśli ktoś jest w Chrystusie, nowym [u]jest stworzeniem; stare przeminęło, oto wszystko stało się nowe.
18. A wszystko to jest z Boga, który nas pojednał z sobą przez Chrystusa i poruczył nam służbę pojednania,

Jest, a nie "stanie się".


No wlasnie JEST
tak wlasnie twierdze - od razu 100%. podobnie jak ze stworzeni
fantomik pisze:stare przeminęło, oto wszystko stało się nowe
em w 1 Mojzesza - Tohu Wa Bohu - z niczego od razu calosc - a nie jakies ogniwa posrednie.


Wierz w Pana Jezusa Chrystusa a będziesz zbawiony

Obrazek

cms|skr328|PL50950Wroclaw68

Zapraszam 11-14 luty na wykłady Maxa Billetera na Śląsku LINK: http://skroc.pl/3fb2

Wróć do „Gdybolologia - Krolowa Nauk :)”

Kto jest online

Użytkownicy przeglądający to forum: Obecnie na forum nie ma żadnego zarejestrowanego użytkownika i 5 gości