Posted on 05/21/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by Full Court
God bless John MacArthur!
Pray for him to get right about the blood of Jesus.
Uh..yeah... right...LOL!
Revelation 1:5 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...
John says that isn't true, just symbolic.
The blood of Jesus Christ is just a talking point?
No, I did not, and I did for this reason state that my views were based solely on if this was a fair depiction of his views. However, it does appear that MacArthur did mistate himself, for most assuredly, blood does not mean death.
To be clear, "John" means John McArthur, right? Revelations was written by a much more famous and more important John.
E.L. Bynum is no authority to appeal to. He is liked by people who agree with him. MacArthur is liked by people who agree with him. I do say that E.L. Bynum has managed to select some damning (in the figurative sense!) quotes from MacArthur, and unlike Graham, these quotes are from a book, not merely extemporaneous speech. (It is one thing to misstate oneself when speeking extemporaneously; it is another to publish a book with misleading wordings!)
Oh but certainly he is. He has a long history of making sure he reports the facts.
Correct.
Why are all the refereces to MacArthur from 1986 and before?
It's fishy to take 20+ year old stuff from a still active pastor.
I'd imagine MacArthur has learned a thing or two in 20 years...have you?
That's when he wrote the book. He obviously thought he knew enough then to do so.
Where is the Barf Alert - John is one of the greatest Bible teachers in the history of the Church in the US...certainly in the top 100 of all time. The idiocy demonstrated above reveals the limitations of the author, not the short-comings of John's teaching.
MacAuthor said those things, if you claim he is so great, why is he so wrong?
In late-August of 1999, MacArthur released an extensive statement recanting his position of Incarnational Sonship. A key portion of that statement read as follows:
"I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of 'incarnational sonship.' Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ's sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation."
Sadly, MacArthur's statement gave no indication how widely he planed to publish this doctrinal change, if at all. Moreover, MacArthur showed no remorse or regret or repentance for the many he has misled on this vital doctrine over the years, including, but not limited to, the damage that took place in the IFCA. (It was the same story when MacArthur broke off with Larry Crabb and then Gary Ezzo -- absolutely no repentance for the many thousands led into the clutches of these two psychoheretics.)
Reading the entire August, 1999 statement, MacArthur compared his theological review process to that of Augustine's before his death. But MacArthur's words come off more as a trivialization of a crucial doctrine than genuine remorse for teaching falsely; MacArthur's "repentance" reads more like: "Me and Augustine -- just doing a little theological review before we die." In his statement, MacArthur even said it's no big deal for others to hold to a mere Incarnational Sonship -- NOT "rank heresy" or anything like that -- and still falling within the boundaries of orthodoxy. As if the doctrine of Eternal Sonship is some insignificant gray area that believers have the liberty to accept or reject!
It would have also been helpful if MacArthur had given his followers a little of his thought process in coming to this change in theology to which he had held so adamantly for so many years, in speaking and in writing. Should we now expect a recall of MacArthur's Hebrews Commentary, his 1991 booklet The Sonship of Christ, and The MacArthur Study Bible? Don't hold your breath.]
- After John MacArthur changed his position on the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, he wrote a letter in which he explained how he could sign the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA) doctrinal statement even during all those years when he strongly denied the Eternal Sonship of Christ. These are his words (in a letter to a Pennsylvania pastor dated 9/30/99):
"Frankly, I don't think the breach in the IFCA is merely a matter of the incarnational sonship. That's such an isolated issue. It seems to me that the people who created the rift are, by disposition, divisive. Also, the statement on sonship in the IFCA doctrine is simply that Christ is the eternal Son of God without any explanation. Even people who believe in an incarnational sonship, such as I used to, could affirm the statement that He is the eternal Son of God with qualification."
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/macarthur/general.htm
Wow! Incarnational sonship, if it is the converse of what MacArthur describes his new belief to be, sounds like a WHOPPER of a heresy!!!
I listen to John MacArthur's radio show every day. He's not my favorite, but there's no way he's a heretic. Whoever wrote that, is simply trying to make a name for themself. What most of the kooks that write junk like this do, is cut and paste crap from years ago, while taking things out of context and twisting it around to suit their own needs. Them folks make it much easier that they'll be seeing the likes of hell. Simply because they are steering a multitude of people in the wrong direction-on purpose. And most of the time, it's for $$$$. That is what's know as a False Teacher...
...That is the main reason I only read a couple lines. I can spot one of these brainless creeps, right away. They make me wanna puke...
Well, chances are excellent that this yo-yo has taken it out-of-context and worded it to suit his own needs, which quite probably include milking this for as many $$$$ as he can. I listen to MacArthur daily, and I simply would never even think of lending an ear to heresy on a daily basis. The guy that wrote the article is just a bona fide-NUT! That's all...
Absolutely false. Pastor Bynum doesn't make money off the newsletter he publishes, unlike John Macarthur, who milks the gullible for all he can, obviously.
You were doing quite well with your post because it was all your opinion, until you tacked on, obviously. That's quite fine, if you choose to think that way, but you included me, and I don't like that in the least. However, if the goal was to cause trouble, you succeeded quite nicely...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.