Replies

She posted the thread and appears to believe all the propaganda contained in it. She posted additional information and apparently stands behind her allegation that MacArthur is a rank heretic on the issue of the meaning of the Blood of Christ.

Here is my position on it.

MacArthur has several positions I disagree with. One of them is his "Lordship salvation" theory. Another is one he has already repented for, regarding the Sonship of Jesus Christ. So I can give him a pass on that one.

I personally disagree with his study bible, as I am KJVO.

I believe he is wrong to hint around at "separation" but not really practice it.

I believe the more a person knows about what someone teaches and preaches, the safer you are, because people are then free to compare what anyone teaches to what God says in Scripture.

MacArthur has published quite a lot regarding his theory that "it wasn't the blood" it was "the death."

So it's not "propaganda" to discuss what JM has put out for public consumption.

I feel like all here are adults and can search the Scriptures to see whether or not it is so.

www.justbible.com

If anyone comes to the conclusion that JM is right, so be it.

If someone comes to the conclusion that he is wrong about the Blood of Jesus, so be it also.

Either way, if it encourages anyone to look at what God has to say, I count it a blessing and I hope you all do.

Acts 17:10
¶And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

MacArthur has several positions I disagree with. One of them is his "Lordship salvation" theory.

Question

I know that you take a Biblical view of salvation by faith alone.

John Macarthur: Yes, by grace through faith--not by faith alone. By grace through faith.

Question (continued)

Ok, but I’m a little confused as far as the implications of that Lordship to the non-Christian at the point of salvation. How much of it can they really comprehend in terms of the Lordship issue? And then along with that, are you saying through your series on the Lordship that the call to salvation is synonymous with the call to discipleship?

Answer

I am saying that explicitly, that a call to salvation is indeed a call to discipleship. I am saying that it is obvious that a person coming to faith in Jesus Christ will not fully understand the implications of his Lordship. They will not fully understand the reality of their sin, but there must be a call to that. In other words, when you call a sinner to repentance and you call a sinner to submit to Christ, they don’t fully understand the implications of that. But, they will understand as much as they can understand.

Now, let me say something that is very, very important for you to understand. I do not believe that an incomplete presentation of the gospel--in other words, if you just present the gospel that Jesus died for your sin and rose again and graciously offers you forgiveness by faith in his name; if that’s all you presented, and you didn’t talk about Lordship, and you didn’t talk about being a disciple, and you didn’t talk about repentance, and you didn’t talk about turning from sin-even an incomplete presentation of the gospel-now listen-could not prevent someone from being saved whom God was saving. Got that? Because if you didn’t talk about sin, they’d be feeling the conviction. And if you didn’t talk about submission, they’d be coming to that submission.

What I am saying is that when we present a shallow gospel, we don’t prevent the elect from getting saved; we make people think they’re saved who aren’t. That’s the issue. Do you see the distinction? That’s the issue. And so what we have-just imagine this now!-what we have then are a lot of people who think they’re Christians. And we have a lot of churches that are run by congregational rule, which means that a lot of churches are being run by what? Non-Christians! That’s a frightening reality. I’m quite sure there are Christian organizations being operated by non-Christians.

So, I don’t want to say that… You know, somebody said to me, “Well, I didn’t know all about Lordship when I was saved. Am I not saved?” No. The issue is, “Do you understand that Jesus is Lord and is it your heart’s desire to love Him and serve Him?” And if the answer is yes, then you understand it. So, that’s the point you have to understand.

Now, Jesus called men to follow Him in discipleship. He called them to obey Him. We’ve shown all of that and we’ll even go into more detail when the book comes out.

I believe that when you present the gospel-now listen carefully to this-you can make it as difficult as possible! That’s what Jesus did. He made it as difficult as possible. Why? Because salvation is a work of God, not based on the cleverness of the one giving the gospel, but based on the power of God. So, if a person is being saved by God, then you want them to fully understand their salvation. And if God isn’t doing it, you want to make sure that they’re not coming in on some illusion.

Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by:

Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986

MacArthur has published quite a lot regarding his theory that "it wasn't the blood" it was "the death."

And he's right. It was His death which accomplished the task. He did not simply "bleed" for our sins, he DIED for our sins. If it is merely the blood which is sufficient, then his death was unnecessary. He could have achieved the same thing by opening up a vein and catching a pint every couple of weeks until there was sufficient shedding of blood to accomplish the task.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV)

There are some corrections needed for this author:

1) I'm not sure how this author can make the claim that John MacArthur is both a "hyper-Calvinist" and is "ecumenical" at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

2) As far as Lordship Salvation, John MacArthur published some things on this topic a number of years ago for which he got re-soundly bashed. He has since retracted this view. However, retractions these days are not as easy as when Augustine retracted his works. This material flies out on the Internet and you'll spend the next 20 years saying you were wrong.

3) The reason John MacArthur was kicked off the BBN wasn't because of his views on Lordship Salvation, hyper-Calvinism, and the blood of Christ. The reason John MacArthur was kicked off the BBN was because he talked about election. There was an article on this some time back here but here is another link John MacArthur Gets Booted Off the Bible Broadcasting Network for Preaching the the Biblical Doctrine of Election Aug 23, 2004

While I will agree with you that the more you know what someone teaches and preaches the safer you are. However, it would be beneficial for this author to get his facts straight. His material is based upon out of date information and innuendos. Unfortunately, going to this author's webpage, I can't find his theological views on election of the saints. It would be nice to know. I know Spurgeon's and MacArthur's views.

I believe the more a person knows about what someone teaches and preaches, the safer you are, because people are then free to compare what anyone teaches to what God says in Scripture.
MacArthur has published quite a lot regarding his theory that "it wasn't the blood" it was "the death."

So it's not "propaganda" to discuss what JM has put out for public consumption.

I quite agree with this approach. The problem I have with E.L. Bynum's articles in this thread, however, is that Bynumy doesn't even come close to doing this. I went through all the articles you've posted at the top of this thread, and documented all the citations that Bynum gives to back up his charges against MacArthur. What I found was most troubling:

Almost all of the citations given to support the charge that "MacArthur's position on the Blood of Christ is a great heresy" - come from only one actual MacArthur work, an article titled "Not His Bleeding, but His Dying" that is said to have been written in 1976. In four article written by Bynum, only one gives a reference to the work this article was published in - the "Grace To You Family paper". The charge of heresy was first published in the Bob Jones University publication "Faith For the Family", April 1986 edition.

Let me summarize this for emphasis:

the article was written in a 1976 church newsletter. No critique was made or published until ten years later.

One other significant John MacArthur source is named by Bynum, specifically the 1983 edition of MacArthur's Commentary on the Book of Hebrews, which Bynum claims to have purchased in the 1990s (meaning AFAIK it never came up in the 1986 Bob Jones article, despite being published three years earlier). Only three pages are cited from this 400+ page work, all for use of the word "symbol" in connection with the word "blood", but none, in and of themselves, containing any heretical statements. Instead, MacArthur's language is alleged to be like another writer, and that writer's work is castigated.

Once again, let me summarize Bynum's position for clarity:

No complaint is made against MacArthur's 1983 Hebrews Commentary except for three adjoining pages, wherein it is found offensive solely for resembling another writer's work. No actual heresy charge is laid against MacArthur's Hebrews commentary.

The only other MacArthur writings actually cited are three personal letters written in 1986, in response to the Bob Jones University article, to try and correct the misunderstandings made of his 1976 article. Bynum will hear none of it, in part because the 1986 letters disagree with his understanding of the 1976 article, in part because Bynum doesn't agree with MacArthur's definition of various OT types and symbols.

The last charge made against MacArthur is his speaking at or attending multiple leadership conferences, often naming Billy Graham's connection with each as the chief offensive element. These include conferences connected with the Moody Bible Institute, the National Religious Broadcasters association, Wheaton College, and Jerry Falwell's "Super Conference VIII". At no point does Bynum provide details about what MacArthur said or did at any of these - his attendance is all that matters.

So let's bring it back to your statement at the top of this post:

"I believe the more a person knows about what someone teaches and preaches, the safer you are"

John MacArthur has been in a public ministry since at least 1976. That's thirty years of ministry. MacArthur has written at least 75 different publications in those thirty years, and that doesn't count the volumes of content his daily radio program features. Out of all that content, at least a decade's worth prior to 1986, someone waited ten years to claim MacArthur is a heretic, and their best ammo is a couple of sentences out of a ten-year-old, narrowly-circulated magazine?

Did you know that John MacArthur once attended Bob Jones University? Dollars to donuts, MacArthur did something in '85 or '86 - possibly his becoming president of competing Master's College in 1985 - that torqued off Bob Jones University, and someone on the faculty kept one of MacArthur's old church bulletins in a desk drawer "just in case" their old student needed to be taught a lesson.