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...
MacArthur has commentaries and sermons on the Revelation, available online. These would be the surest way to check his position on this.
You all understand that this topic is not a primary doctrine, so any mans position on it is as important as coffee black or coffee with milk. Wise men save their outrage for important things.
And I have no idea how that relates to John MacArthur at all.
Since Jesus tells us that taking the Mark of the Beast means eternal damnation, I’m pretty sure this is an extremely important doctrine.
And to put it in context, Satan’s Mark of the Beast is counterfeiting the Lord’s “invisible mark” on the foreheads of all believers.
To diminish the importance of Satan’s Mark of the Beast and how it is a damnable action if one takes the Mark; and to misunderstand what the Enemy of our Souls is counterfeiting with the Mark... is a hugely problematic issue for the End Times Church.
You responded to my instinctual reaction that the man is “un-listenable” because of his guilt inflicting Calvinist spirit.
LOL. I'm a "Cath" who loves listening to R.C. (since the 1980's) and have learned a ton from him. Just like anyone else, I take what is good, and throw out what I see as not squarely biblical, not in line with historical Church teaching, and occasional mis-characterizations of Catholic teaching. A mature and informed Christian can learn something from every good teacher.
I’ve a lot more confidence in the teaching of John MacArthur than in Jacob Prasch - whoever he is.
And you have failed to identify what "guilt inflicting Calvinist" even means. You chose to blame your own conscience on MacArthur.
It means a tyrannical works-based salvation, where you never have the joy in the Lord (which is our strength) but self castigate in an arena of condemnation... or so I’ve seen from the refugees from MacArthur’s church.
I just believe in the Word: taking the Mark of the Beast is an eternally damnable act.
Did some reading. Seems to be a dispute over the question, “Can someone who took the mark of the beast ever repent?” MacArthur says they could, in theory. Others say they cannot.
Reminds me of the long fought question, “If someone says they believe and have asked for forgiveness and been baptized and then rejects Jesus, did they “fall away”? Or did they never really believe?”
My response would be, “Who gives a rat’s rear? Don’t do it!”
“It means a tyrannical works-based salvation...”
If anyone claims MacArthur teaches you work for your salvation, they lie. If someone says you can be saved and then go live however you please, they lie.
Of course MacArthur's Cessationism is junk theology from the get-go.
But to teach that it is okay to take the Mark of the Beast is a damnable heresy.
That’s the problem... MacArthur is saying that is okay for people to take the Mark of the Beast.
I’ve been a Christian for 40 years without knowing what “Cessationism” means. Oh well. And he does NOT teach it is OK to take the mark of the beast. He merely says that IF someone who did repented afterward, it would not be “unpardonable” - because it is not what Jesus called the unpardonable sin.
“But to teach that it is okay to take the Mark of the Beast is a damnable heresy.”
And to claim MacArthur says that is a damnable lie! Shame on you!
Someone asked what exactly MacArthur said. I posted the Phil Johnson article as a reply to that question, so yes, I did know that there was a close relationship. (I believe they are both pastors in the same church, so not employee/employer.) In FR it's pretty easy to see who I was replying to, and I did post the question I was answering in italics at the beginning of my post.
I was unable to watch the video on the computer I'm using right now. I did see that you mentioned his name in your comments.
I'm not sure that I agree with MacArthur on this on, but this is really a doctrine that is based on one passage in Revelation. We don't have anything close to a consensus on how to interpret Revelation, and three of the four major interpretive frameworks (preterist, historist, idealist) deny that there are real future events depicted in Revelation, so one would do well to weigh other passages before making firm pronouncements based upon it.
Jesus said there is one unpardonable sin. Does receiving the mark fall under blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I'd say maybe, but I'm not ready to start calling everyone who disagrees with me a heretic. You might be right, or you might be the end times version of Fred Phelps - "God Hates ______", instead of Repent!
I will say most of the posts on this thread add more heat than light. (Confession: My baby/bathwater comment probably fits that as well.)
I can....and have....listened to hours of Sproul...
....Yes, I am a Christian....
Don’t even think about going after Sproul!!!!!
Believe what you want.....but leave us Calvinists alone!
Get the actual quote down pat before you defend him.
There is no repenting from the Mark of the Beast, especially if the Mark is a computer chip with a DNA altering mechanism.
Google around for those who believe the miracles done in the 1st Century “ceased” and the Holy Spirit, poured out at Pentecost, somehow departed from the church.
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
I'd say that in Romans 9.10-13 Paul states the Reformed position on salvation as well as anyone.
Jimmy DeYoung and Brannon Howse apparently agree with MacArthur too. SMH...
http://anothervoicerev184.blogspot.com/2013/11/apostasy-alert-john-macarthur-and.html
The Bible is clear on what will happen to those who do take the Mark:
Revelation 14:9-12
9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.
Taking the Mark of the Beast means you are worshipping the Beast and this is an irreversible act and an unpardonable sin (which can only be committed during the End Times... never before this time).
MacArthur should know that, but I suspect he still has Freemasonic ties, just as his dad and grandfather did, which alters his thinking.
https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?14,76955,page=32
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.