MacArthur is a lightweight, not a scholar but just a pompous windbag. He played football in college and apparently got hit on the head too many times...then went to that great high institute of learning “Talbot” and got some kind of PhD....I guess he saw his dad, a fundamentalist preacher made a pretty easy living so went that route. Of course he has that kind of Baptist testimony you often hear - “ I was a drunkard, a derelict, didn’t care ...then I met Christ....blah, blah, blah...”
He has flipped and flopped over the years on many things. He started out KJV only, then switched. He taught Christ was not the ETERNAL Son of God - in his first NT commentary on Hebrews and then “whoops” he changed his mind. He taught we are and are not saved by the blood of Christ.
Finally, he became a sort of near Calvinist....4.5 points or so....Many Calvinists disown him. However, one cannot tell if he is supra-lapsarian, infra-lapsarian, or what.
He is extremely confused on salvation. He wrote books on so-called “Lordship Salvation” that pleased some Calvinists, and also alarmed many. Fundamentalists disowned him - Charles Ryrie and others wrote rebuttals on this. Trinity Foundation wrote a three part essay on what a heretic he was for he cannot even define Faith...as assent to propositions understood and believed or where/if/how works relate to Faith
He is the champion of coming up with confusing phrases about faith - saving, weak, strong, temporary, lasting, etc....He radically separates justification and sanctification so being “saved” is a momentary act, salvation is a long, long process...and we judge how that is going to determine if the momentary “act” of justification was “real” or not...He can’t get a grip on assurance and he isn’t sure who outside his little cult of Grace Community Church measures up.
MacArthur thinks the church is “invisible” and not an institution, yet his ecclesiastical community appoints “Elders” and tries to enforce discipline, rules, etc.
I think I heard Robert Sungenis mop the floor with MacArthur once....the guy is just confused.
I wonder why so few of the anti Catholic rants posted have any basis in fact? It is telling because there could be an honest debate over doctrinal differences that are based on actual Catholic teaching and practice. I’ve seen it done in a civil but no quarter manner on certain religious blogs. If you have to resort to lies in order to advance your beliefs something is wrong.
I feel fortunate that most of the Reformed Protestants I know don’t use such tactics but debate charitably and honestly on matters of doctrine.
Dude, seriously, do you even know anything?