MacArthur on the Purpose Driven Life

I've preached in some churches like that once.

 

Did ya give them both barrels brother?

 

"Some churches like that once"? Did you mean that you preached in a church like that once? Or do you mean that you have preached in several of those kinds of churches occasionally?

 

Did you live in Canyon Country?

Still engaging in gossip I see. You haven't a clue about John MacArthur.

I know some also. They would be characterized as theologically astute. I don't trust your judgment on the matter.

By the use of the word 'some' by yourself I have the feeling that you are referencing a single person. I know multiples. I know grads of Master's Theological Seminary, and those currently attending. Your anecdotal style leaves much to be desired.Some of the brightest Christian men have gone there. Many are in their 40's or beyond. What you have said is a fabrication if you are trying to say that most grads are theologically weak. That charge just won't stick.

So I guess you are not familiar with his books and sermons?

Your statement is kind of fuzzy. Most Christains in the pulpit or out have a particular viewpoint on passages. Do you think Dr. MacArthur would be a better qualified preacher/teacher if he had a smorgasbord of views on biblical passages -- an eclecticism of sorts? Is that your pastoral ideal?!

You are not allowed to say 'consequently' with your sparce 'evidence'. Your premise is flawed.

Yeah, here is your survey of one person. Your post is a waste of cyper-space. (With due apologies from the one I borrowed that line from.)

 

No. I have preached in several of those kinds of churches 'once'.

 

according to what we've been told on here many times, this is gossip.

 

I know several graduates form Masters seminary. So how would you know what I do and do not know. One of my close friends graduated from there as well. So to say I know nothing shows you lack knowledge.

I gave you an example can you give some examples. Anyone who has a doctorate and does not know what a Mishnah is seriously lacking. I have not met one graduate from Masters Seminary who knows what a Mishnah is. Have you?

I know five who have graduated from Masters seminary and everytone have told me the same things. When I talk with them about varying viewpoints on particular passsages they tell me they have never heard such a thing. Two of them told me that once they graduated that the seminary teaches one point of view. I be4came good freinds with one of the graduates who is a pastor and he talked with me almost every week about what he was preaching. Part of the reason he told me is that he was taught only one viewpoint and I was exposed to other viewpoints in seminary. To be fair though I consider most seminaries rather poor in their requirements from their pastoral studies students. I know that even where I graduated from most are not very well prepared in terms of theology and language studies. The majority opt our of the languages. I was fortunate in that three of the professors required a lot from us and their focus was to help us be well prpeared. One was in charge of the doctoral program.

I own all of his commentaries and have read some of his other books. I found him to step beyond what the text actually teaches and goes into his own opinion as though it were fact. Sometimes try looking up some of the references he gives from the Talmud. The actual reference is lacking. I first heard him preach at Hume Lake in 1974.I will give him credit in that I believe he has grown a lot since that time. The one things that bothers me most about him is the same thing I saw in 1974. If I find myself spending time criticizing God's servants then all I need to do is to check myslef and I find that I am not so great myself. People are drawn to dogmatism whether it is correct or not.

I cannot tell you how many times I was told as a young pastor to not preach certain passages and to skip them. Do you call that having a particular viewpoint. When a pastor studies he should be aware of various viewpoints in an effort to deal with them. By dealing with them he wil know more about what he believes. If he were to only study one viewpoint he agrees with, then he will be ill equipped to deal with other viewpoints. Studying other viewpoints helps to be challenged and study further. For example on the the issue of deacons. If one only believes in male deacons he has totally missed how the early church used women and who deacons really are. People on both sides cannot be correct but all can be wrong. What I find in the majority of cases is that both are wrong because they have not studied the issue in light of its historical context but rather settle for what they are told by the political machine. Think about how many preachers preach what they have been told or read and not what they have actually studied. Think about how many pastors keep up their language studies once they graduate.

 

I will add one more. Did you know what a Mishnah was before I asked you at this time?

 

Guys, calm down.

Remember that our purpose here is to trash Rick Warren, mkay?

:laugh:

:tonofbricks:


...that was some Friday Sarcasm, BTW.

 

I went to one of the top furnituremaking scholls in the world and before I went I thought I was quite good until I met the master where I went. I was quite good compared to others I knew but nothing compared to the man who has some of his work in the Smithsonian. My intelligence did not change before or after I went but my skills did.

Intelligence has nothing to do with preparation and skills. All those I know are smart and good pastors but all of them have told me that they were not very well prepared in terms of exegesis and theology. I could easily see it when I talked with them and heard them preach. They were unaware of differing viewpoints and resources.

MacArthur is a pastor not a scholar. He produces good pastors but not scholars.

 

Isn't that the objective so the world can see us first instead of Christ. If I remember right Lee Strobel has joined him. It seems like Lee has written a few books recently and is reaching non-Christians.

It seems that some preachers have forgotten 1 Cor. 3:4-9 "For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave [opportunity] to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building."

 

I would say he is an above average scholar. Apart from Lordship Salvation and soteriology, his etymology, history and eschatology are pretty accurate.

 

Two questions:

1. What is the problem with Lordship salvation?

2. What is accurate about MacArthur's eschatology?

 

There has been numerous LS debates here, and information can be gathered from them.

I believe the pre-mil, pre-trib eschatology is the one best supported in Scripture.

 

1 Cor. 3:15, "If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."

It is one thing to name Jesus as Lord and quite another to make him Lord in every case. Nobody is perfect so nobody makes Jesus as Lord every moment. To make Jesus as Lord every moment is to claim the person is without sin.

 

Your argument is faulty. If Jesus Christ is not my Lord He is not my Savior. I find nothing in Scripture that states Jesus Christ is not my Lord when I sin against Him. If there is please inform me.

I have spent many years in the Southern Baptist church seeing the following play out. Someone walks the aisle and whispers in the pastors ear. The pastor then informs the congregation: "So and so accepted Jesus Christ as Savior when he was 8, 10, 12 etc., etc.; he is now coming forward to make Jesus Christ Lord of his life."

That is pure bunk.

 

What you are claiming is to say that Jesus is always Lord or He is not savior. I believe that is the goal but in a pragmatic sense is unlikely to occur at all times. About forty percent of scripture is filled with failures. I believe we should continually strive to make Christ Lord. That it the goal but as a person with two natures I do not always do that every moment. How can one sin aginst God and yet at the same time name Jesus as Lord? Nobody can serve two masters. A divided heart and allegiance is not making both Lord. Historically naming Jesus as Lord meant that the emperor could have had the believer executed because the emepror was the lord in that society. By naming Jesus as Lord meant that the person was renouncing the emperor as lord. In the early church when persecution came many denied Christ and then later they repented. When they repented the early church was reluctant to take them back.

As the Christians in the book of Hebrews went back and forth between Christianity and Judaism under hard times was Jesus their Lord?

I saw the same thing and quickly got tired of the Baptist Catholics in the SBC. Baptist in doctrine and loyal as Catholics. When I was in the SBC I quickly got tired of the gurus preaching and teaching the very thigs you are talking about. What you are mentioning happens because the SBC makes little effort beyond intellectual and doctrinal issues in its follow up of new believers. What you described seldom happens with those who have been taught what Christ commanded in Mt. 28:19, 20.

No mother and father in their right mind would ever leave their own baby to feed and clothe itself and suggest that the baby is mature enough to do such a thing. Yet too many gurus today are nothing more than politicians and good sounding brass in coming up with another program when Jesus already led the way in the work He commanded. They encourage peope not to do the hard work of true discipleship but rather letting the new converts be exposed to a smorgasboard of ideas and whatever comes easy. It has been my experience that the vast majority of new believers will do the hard work if they are shown the way by me doing it with them and others.

There is a case in scripture where one names Jesus as Lord and Jesus is not Lord.

Mt. 7:21-23, "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'"

How would you interpret 1 Cor 3:15, "If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."

 

Does one teach a person to make Christ Lord or does it come with salvation? Historically and scripturally I think there are cases for both.

 

"gb93433 About forty percent of scripture is filled with failures" Did you mean scriptures have 40% failures...or people? The scriptures cannot be wrong at all...ever! But does record failures of people if that's what you meant by this.