Posted on 08/07/2018 3:51:25 AM PDT by Sontagged
John MacArthur has stated that one can take the mark of the beast, worshiping Satan and his image, and still be saved.
The Bible says the exact opposite.
He is exposed here as condemning himself unwittingly.
His friend and partner Phil Johnson of Grace to You along with Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio and Fighting for the Faith also join in condemning MacArthur.
This is the fruit of personal favoritism; blind irrationality. John MacArthur propagates a damnable false teaching that is simply a lie. His sycophants Phil Johnson, Todd Friel, Justin Peters, etc. have all defended him saying that there is only one unpardonable sin; only one blasphemy of the holy spirit. After this, they all have some explaining to do.
See Jacob Prasch confront this teaching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHvk...
That’s Once Saved Always Saved in action.
Snicker. Sorry, but Cessastionist teachings are so easy to refute.
Though I do agree with MacArthur's N.A.R. criticism of the charismatic church, if he's deft enough to understand the difference between theologically sound charismatics and NAR extremists... which I doubt.
MacArthur eternally disqualifies himself with this “Christians can take the Mark of the Beast and be saved” heresy...
You are a Kool Aid drinker. Get out of that cult.
I have the same exact opinion as you do.
Unforgivable?
by Phil Johnson Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Several years ago in a live Q&A session, someone asked John MacArthur if taking the mark of the Beast during the Great Tribulation would be an unpardonable sin. His answer, in short, was no. Though there is a stern warning against taking the mark of the Beast in Revelation 14, the sin is not categorically said to be unpardonable. (That would contradict Matthew 12:31.) The point of the severe language in Revelation 14 is to make clear what an utterly reprehensible sin it will be to swear an oath of willful loyalty to Antichrist.
Someone posted John MacArthur’s reply to that question on YouTube with a melodramatic one-word title in all caps: “OUTRAGE.” Gossip-mongers on the Internet got hold of it, apparently, and within days someone wrote to our ministry saying, “I saw pastor John on a YouTube video saying the way to be saved in the Tribulation is to take the mark of the Beast.”
Well—no.
If someone listens to Pastor MacArthur’s reply and imagines he was saying it’s no great sin to receive the mark of the Beast, listen again; that grossly twists what he actually said. The question is not (as one writer suggests) “How Far Can You Go and Still Be Able to Repent?” The point John MacArthur was making is about the extremes to which God’s grace will reach in order to seek and save a sinner.
Yes, Revelation 14:9–11 says, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” Clearly, receiving the mark is a sin that will send those who commit it to hell.
But the Bible also says, “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10). In short, all sin carries the threat of eternal doom, and some particularly heinous sins have a built-in hardening effect that makes them particularly dangerous. Scripture occasionally singles out common sins that have this peculiarly soul-destroying effect.
On the other hand, only one very specific sin is ever said to be unforgivable. Any sin that is repented of is forgivable. Immediately after declaring all fornicators, drunkards, and swindlers unfit for heaven, the apostle writes, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). After saying, “Whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven,” Jesus famously forgave Peter, who denied Him before men.
Jesus Himself said, “Any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven ” (Matthew 12:31, emphasis added). The one unpardonable sin was the sin of those who had seen His miracles with their own eyes; they knew He was the true Messiah; they were part of the generation to whom He was personally sent. And yet they attributed His powers to Satan. That was unforgivable because it was such a hard-hearted, willful expression of utter rejection from fully enlightened hearts, who punctuated their rejection with an extreme blasphemy. Those Pharisees had stood in the presence of the living embodiment of all truth; they heard His words and saw His works. All the mysteries of Christ had been unveiled before their very eyes. And yet they spurned Him. There was nothing else that could be shown to them to enlighten them further. They were not deceived; they knew full well what they were doing. That’s why their sin was unpardonable (cf. 1 Timothy 1:13).
Revelation 19:20 indicates that multitudes will take the mark of the Beast because they are deceived. Scripture does not say that they are thereby automatically hardened forever against repentance. That is not the point of the strong warnings.
This whole issue suddenly became a matter of intense controversy when it was mentioned on a provocative radio program. It’s certainly not worth all the ink that has been wasted and all the bandwidth that has been consumed by angry people demanding explanations and retractions. This much should certainly be clear from the biblical text (and I think would be affirmed by all sides): Taking the mark of the Beast is high treason against Christ and will be judged by God accordingly. Meanwhile, the Lord is “good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon [Him]” (Psalm 86:5).
Glad you brought it up (with a personal false accusation against me... really weird)... but, it allows for a mini-sermon on the “guilt with a remedy” that the Holy Spirit allows versus Satan’s condemnation and false character assassinations as the “accuser of the Brethren”.
We take our lead from two important scriptures...
“Therefore there is now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.”
and
“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved...”
There is a righteous “guilt with a remedy” that the Holy Spirit allows when we are doing something wrong and need to repent,
... but crass guilt-inflicting via Calvinism like John MacArthur employs is of Satan... who always is the (false) accuser of the brethren.
... didn't you see that?
In any case, discussing and deconstructing heresy such as this is not ‘gossip mongering” as Johnson suggests.
We are to be Bereans about theology.
Or has MacArthur discredited the Bereans now, too?
The heresy of the NAR charismatics is a damning as MacArthurism.
And I say this as a Pentecostal Charismatic
Is that what Cessationist Calvinists like MacArthur believe? Once saved always saved?
Arminian. https://www.allaboutgod.com/once-saved-always-saved.htm
Reformed (Calvinist) is Perseverance of the Saints which says “If you are Saved, you will stay in that state until death”. You will not leave the faith.
Once Saved Always Saved says “If you get Saved, it cannot be reversed no matter what happens after that event”. You can leave the faith but you are still Saved.
Wesleyan’s believe you cannot be plucked from God’s Hand but you can jump out. You can surrender your Salvation.
Nothing in this “mini-sermon” contradicts Reformed soteriology at all.
Isn’t John MacArthur the one who got into hot water a few years ago because he appeared to deny the efficacy of the blood of Christ? IIRC, he backtracked and “clarified” his position, but it’s still disturbing that he’d be shaky enough on a fundamental, basic doctrine like that as to raise questions about it anywise.
Yes it is.
Looks like a lot of folks here have their panties in a wad over doctrinal disputes and are failing to recognize that it is not what you believe, but Who you believe in that is the key to salvation.
Unfortunately, that is what causes many to fall away.
Whatever that is... I just wanted you to recognize that crass guilt-inflicting is never the work of the Holy Spirit.
I’m not sure because the last time I gave a thought to MacArthur was a year or so ago when I was praying with a messed-up former member of his church that God would judge MacArthur for causing so much pain in the body of Christ.
Interesting, I think I agree with Wesley?
I agree but remember that true unity in the Body of Christ is a unity of belief in the Truth of the Word made flesh.
Interesting discussion.
I know one or two wounded charismatics who flock to the other extreme of John MacArthur’s Calvinism... and both extremes... NAR charismatics and Cessatoinist Calvinists - are off.
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.