John MacArthur

[Treasure]

I've been listening to MacArthur and read several of his books. Highly recommend him.

[JHERB]

I've been listening to MacArthur and read several of his books. Highly recommend him.

Thank You!!!!!

[Treasure]

You're most welcome.

[OneLight]

There is one major division of what MacArthur teaches and what I believe. He teaches that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not for today and I believe they are. Since he does not believe that the Holy Spirit works in the body as He said He would, I have to back away from his other teachings. Anyone who does not believe all of scripture is questionable in my book. Though he may be solid in salvation, which is the main goal of all believers, when it comes to the meat, I leave his teachings alone and study scripture with He who promises to teach me the truth.

I have to say that this is not just for MacArthur, I don't read much of any mans teachings.

[JHERB]

There is one major division of what MacArthur teaches and what I believe. He teaches that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not for today and I believe they are. Since he does not believe that the Holy Spirit works in the body as He said He would, I have to back away from his other teachings. Anyone who does not believe all of scripture is questionable in my book. Though he may be solid in salvation, which is the main goal of all believers, when it comes to the meat, I leave his teachings alone and study scripture with He who promises to teach me the truth.

I have to say that this is not just for MacArthur, I don't read much of any mans teachings.

Thanks One!!!!!

[PeterH]

There is one major division of what MacArthur teaches and what I believe. He teaches that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not for today and I believe they are. Since he does not believe that the Holy Spirit works in the body as He said He would, I have to back away from his other teachings. Anyone who does not believe all of scripture is questionable in my book. Though he may be solid in salvation, which is the main goal of all believers, when it comes to the meat, I leave his teachings alone and study scripture with He who promises to teach me the truth.

I have to say that this is not just for MacArthur, I don't read much of any mans teachings.

That's where I disagree with MacArthur as well. The gifts of the Holy Spirit did not fade away after the Apostles died. In the book 12 ordinary men he doesn't mention his beliefs on that subject though from what I remember.

[Guest yod]

I've been listening to MacArthur and read several of his books. Highly recommend him.

Don't think I would label him a "false teacher" because he did proclaim the most important fact: Jesus is Lord

But there are many errors in his teaching with the most grievous one being Replacement Theology. If you accept that premise, the definition of the word "Israel" has been changed and will adversely affect the way you read & understand the scriptures.

[Treasure]

I did a bit of research on Replacement Theology and what John MacArthur had to say about it. There is a youtube video in which he discusses it that I obviously couldn't post here. During an informal question and answer setting at his church, another question was posed that he addressed the issue of Replacement Theology.

It is a theological issue and the substance of the theology is this, that in the Old Testament, Israel was God's covenant people. Right? And the sign of the covenant was what?...circumcision or the removal of the male foreskin on an infant at the eighth day after birth. Now, that was an outward sign of the covenant. Now, what is known as "covenant theology" teaches that the church is the new Israel. All right. We have replaced Israel. God has set Israel aside. He is through with Israel. The church is the new Israel. They teach, then, that there needs to be a covenant sign and so carrying the circumcision concept into the new era of the New Testament, infant baptism then becomes their theological equivalent to circumcision. That's essentially the theological justification for infant baptism. It is not a textual one because there are no verses that indicate it.

Now, the basic assumption then is that we are the Israel of God. I don't know of any group who baptizes infants who believes that the church is distinct from Israel. You understand what I'm saying? If you believe that the church becomes Israel, then there's no more future for Israel. They're done with. For example, John Stott, who would teach this and is a very fine man of God...his works and his writings have been just tremendous...but John Stott was asked in Switzerland recently the significance...what is the significance of the rise of the nation of Israel in our day, biblically. He said it has no significance at all. That was his answer because in his system Israel has no significance anymore. The church has become Israel. The teaching is that when Israel set aside its belief in Messiah and when they called for the death of their Messiah, the covenant was removed from them and the church was postulated in their place and we are the new Israel of God and that Jews can be saved, of course, today by entering into the church. But there will be no restoration of Israel and the ultimate end of things is what is known as amillennialism, no kingdom, because there's no Israel to have a kingdom. So, all of the promises to Israel are fulfilled spiritually in the church.

So, the reason I point that out is because it isn't just the issue of baptizing infants that is the issue theologically. It is a much bigger issue. Infant baptism, then, encompasses covenant theology. It encompasses an amillennial viewpoint. In other words, it gives you real fits when you get to the book of Daniel or the book of Isaiah or Revelation. You just don't know what to do with those things.

Dr. Feinberg, when we were in Israel, in Jerusalem one time, there was a guy who gave a speech and David Ben-Gurion was there and Teddy Kollek, the mayor of Jerusalem. Ben-Gurion was the prime minister of the country at the time. And this fellow got up and said that the church was the new Israel and there was no more prophetic place for Israel as a nation, as a constituted nation. And Dr. Feinberg got up after that and said, "I cannot come, in good faith, to this place and tell you that you get all the curses and we get all the blessings," because that's what the covenantal position ultimately comes to. Israel got all the curses and all the blessings are transferred spiritually to us. And he was not willing to make that the message of the moment to Israel.

And so I would say this. I would say that if it's only an issue of infant baptism, maybe that is not a big enough issue to make a change. But if you're talking about the substance of an entire theological framework which you do not feel comfortable with...I believe one of the reasons God has given us alternatives in this era...it's interesting to me that as the church as moved in history, it has constantly refined its theology. Right? We have more books now than we've ever had. Sure. And all the time we are refining and refining and refining our theology. And the Lord knows that as that gets refined through the years of the church, people will get down to finer points in their theology. And it seems to me that the Lord has even given us the opportunity to identify with as many...there's so many places, right, where you can identify on those fine points and have a fullness of fellowship and feel like you're really not fighting against something.

As to the personal answer to that question, I really don't know what God would have someone do. I think that's very subjective. If I was in that situation and felt I could make a contribution to it and God wanted me there, I'd stay. If I felt that He wanted me, down in my heart to go, I'd go. And I guess I would have to feel this way about it. If I was there as a learner and that's not what I wanted to learn, I'd probably want to take advantage of what I wanted to learn somewhere else. If I was there as a teacher and they were willing to allow me the privilege of input, I think I'd stay at least to see how they responded to try to balance out their viewpoint.

That's a very difficult question and I'll tell you, one of the things that concerns me is we are concerned, you know, when people come here from other churches that other churches don't get angry with us. But when you do teach a definitive theology and people want to identify with that as they see the truth of the Word of God, that's part of the fact. That's what happens. So I don't know the individual issue in each case and I guess I'd have to say, if there's any way possible that you sense God leading you to stay, then stay. That's very subjective but I don't know any other way to say it. Especially if they believe in the authority of the Word of God and the deity of Jesus Christ and all of those things, you know.

You can find the rest of the transcript here

[Guest]

I did a bit of research on Replacement Theology and what John MacArthur had to say about it. There is a youtube video in which he discusses it that I obviously couldn't post here. During an informal question and answer setting at his church, another question was posed that he addressed the issue of Replacement Theology.

It is a theological issue and the substance of the theology is this, that in the Old Testament, Israel was God's covenant people. Right? And the sign of the covenant was what?...circumcision or the removal of the male foreskin on an infant at the eighth day after birth. Now, that was an outward sign of the covenant. Now, what is known as "covenant theology" teaches that the church is the new Israel. All right. We have replaced Israel. God has set Israel aside. He is through with Israel. The church is the new Israel. They teach, then, that there needs to be a covenant sign and so carrying the circumcision concept into the new era of the New Testament, infant baptism then becomes their theological equivalent to circumcision. That's essentially the theological justification for infant baptism. It is not a textual one because there are no verses that indicate it.

Now, the basic assumption then is that we are the Israel of God. I don't know of any group who baptizes infants who believes that the church is distinct from Israel. You understand what I'm saying? If you believe that the church becomes Israel, then there's no more future for Israel. They're done with. For example, John Stott, who would teach this and is a very fine man of God...his works and his writings have been just tremendous...but John Stott was asked in Switzerland recently the significance...what is the significance of the rise of the nation of Israel in our day, biblically. He said it has no significance at all. That was his answer because in his system Israel has no significance anymore. The church has become Israel. The teaching is that when Israel set aside its belief in Messiah and when they called for the death of their Messiah, the covenant was removed from them and the church was postulated in their place and we are the new Israel of God and that Jews can be saved, of course, today by entering into the church. But there will be no restoration of Israel and the ultimate end of things is what is known as amillennialism, no kingdom, because there's no Israel to have a kingdom. So, all of the promises to Israel are fulfilled spiritually in the church.

So, the reason I point that out is because it isn't just the issue of baptizing infants that is the issue theologically. It is a much bigger issue. Infant baptism, then, encompasses covenant theology. It encompasses an amillennial viewpoint. In other words, it gives you real fits when you get to the book of Daniel or the book of Isaiah or Revelation. You just don't know what to do with those things.

Dr. Feinberg, when we were in Israel, in Jerusalem one time, there was a guy who gave a speech and David Ben-Gurion was there and Teddy Kollek, the mayor of Jerusalem. Ben-Gurion was the prime minister of the country at the time. And this fellow got up and said that the church was the new Israel and there was no more prophetic place for Israel as a nation, as a constituted nation. And Dr. Feinberg got up after that and said, "I cannot come, in good faith, to this place and tell you that you get all the curses and we get all the blessings," because that's what the covenantal position ultimately comes to. Israel got all the curses and all the blessings are transferred spiritually to us. And he was not willing to make that the message of the moment to Israel.

And so I would say this. I would say that if it's only an issue of infant baptism, maybe that is not a big enough issue to make a change. But if you're talking about the substance of an entire theological framework which you do not feel comfortable with...I believe one of the reasons God has given us alternatives in this era...it's interesting to me that as the church as moved in history, it has constantly refined its theology. Right? We have more books now than we've ever had. Sure. And all the time we are refining and refining and refining our theology. And the Lord knows that as that gets refined through the years of the church, people will get down to finer points in their theology. And it seems to me that the Lord has even given us the opportunity to identify with as many...there's so many places, right, where you can identify on those fine points and have a fullness of fellowship and feel like you're really not fighting against something.

As to the personal answer to that question, I really don't know what God would have someone do. I think that's very subjective. If I was in that situation and felt I could make a contribution to it and God wanted me there, I'd stay. If I felt that He wanted me, down in my heart to go, I'd go. And I guess I would have to feel this way about it. If I was there as a learner and that's not what I wanted to learn, I'd probably want to take advantage of what I wanted to learn somewhere else. If I was there as a teacher and they were willing to allow me the privilege of input, I think I'd stay at least to see how they responded to try to balance out their viewpoint.

That's a very difficult question and I'll tell you, one of the things that concerns me is we are concerned, you know, when people come here from other churches that other churches don't get angry with us. But when you do teach a definitive theology and people want to identify with that as they see the truth of the Word of God, that's part of the fact. That's what happens. So I don't know the individual issue in each case and I guess I'd have to say, if there's any way possible that you sense God leading you to stay, then stay. That's very subjective but I don't know any other way to say it. Especially if they believe in the authority of the Word of God and the deity of Jesus Christ and all of those things, you know.

You can find the rest of the transcript here http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1301-M_Bible-Questions-and-Answers-Part-15?q=covenant+theology

So, in other words, he won't give a firm answer as to what he believes. I read in one of his commentaries that people can still be possessed and oppressed by demons, but that, as Christians, we are powerless to do anything about it. That is not what scripture says. Christ overcame the enemy and we have that same power, through the Holy Spirit. If not, there would be absolutely no advantage at all to being a Christian, if we were still defeated. John MacArthur says we are. Powerless against the enemy. His teachings on the gifts of the Spirit are in severe error and they are unbiblical. So what else didn't he get right, as Alan said?

If You Name The Name Of The LORD

For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace,

And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest,

Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness,

And her salvation as a lamp that burns. Isaiah 62:1

I Have Little Doubt

I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem;

They shall never hold their peace day or night.

You who make mention of the Lord, do not keep silent,

And give Him no rest till He establishes

And till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth. Isaiah 62:1:6-7

Where You Will End Up Standing (PhD's Or No)

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: Romans 11:26

Maranatha~!

[nebula]

OK, make it two things I don't like about what McArthur teaches!

But with any teacher, you can find agreeable and disagreeable things. No teacher should be read or listened to hook-line-and-sinker. You need to be able to evaluate all things they say compared to Scripture - even your pastor.

There are a lot of things McArthur teaches well. But not all things - as was pointed out.

As with anyone, you have to weigh things out accordingly. Some like to gleen being aware that they might encounter worms along the way. Some prefer to gleen where they won't find such worms. It's up to you how you wish to proceed.