John MacArthur questions Ravi Zacharias salvation

[Philsworld]

Once Saved Always Saved? Or, after the moment of grace, is a Christian then judged by his works and God's holy law? John MacArthur questions the salvation of Ravi Zacharias in the life he led AFTER he came to Christ.

https://youtu.be/L2tpwVrBEz0

[RoosterRedux]

Here's another interesting response from Claude. BTW, AI platforms do sometimes make mistakes so it is important to doublecheck their accuracy.

Question to Claude:

Where does Pastor John MacArthur stand on the issue of Eternal Salvation?

Claude's answer:

Pastor John MacArthur, a prominent evangelical pastor, theologian, and author, holds to the doctrine of eternal security, also known as the perseverance of the saints. This doctrine asserts that genuine believers, who are saved by grace through faith and sealed by the Holy Spirit, cannot lose their salvation.

MacArthur's position on eternal security is rooted in his understanding of key biblical passages and Reformed theological principles. Here are a few key points that summarize his stance:

Genuine salvation: MacArthur believes that true salvation is entirely a work of God's grace, not dependent on human works or merit. When a person genuinely trusts in Christ, they are born again and receive a new nature.

Eternal security: MacArthur teaches that those who are truly saved are kept secure in their salvation by God's power, not by their own strength. He often cites verses like John 10:27-29, Romans 8:38-39, and Philippians 1:6 to support this view.

Perseverance: While MacArthur affirms eternal security, he also emphasizes the importance of perseverance in faith as evidence of genuine salvation. He teaches that true believers will continue in their faith and exhibit spiritual growth, even though they may experience struggles and failures.

Warnings against apostasy: MacArthur interprets the warning passages in Hebrews and elsewhere as addressing professing believers who are not genuinely saved. He believes these warnings serve as a means of exposing false faith and urging self-examination.

In his book "The Gospel According to Jesus," MacArthur writes, "The Bible teaches that the evidence of God's work in a life is the inevitable fruit of transformed behavior (1 John 3:10). Faith that does not result in righteous living is dead and cannot save (James 2:14-26)."

While MacArthur's views on eternal security are shared by many Reformed and evangelical Christians, it's important to note that there is debate within Christianity on this topic. Some traditions, such as Arminianism, believe that salvation can be lost through apostasy or willful sin.

[ShadowAce]

Most people on this site say it’s gospel.

You'll have to prove that statement. Otherwise, I'm calling you a liar.

[AppyPappy]

Once Saved Always Saved means that he was saved.

[Philsworld]

——>You’ll have to prove that statement. Otherwise, I’m calling you a liar.

Maybe I should have said most people on this site who conversed with me about it over the years? Would you be happy with that?

By the way, you aren’t supposed to call people liars on FR. It’s against the rules.

[Philsworld]

——>Even Buzz Lightyear knows this!

Does Buzz know that those believers won’t be in heaven, because of their lawlessness? Maybe there’s more to believing, than just believing?

[Philsworld]

Unless OSAS/OJAJ comes from the mind of Satan, which it does. In that case, he’s in some big trouble for sure. Nevertheless, his salvation is none of my business. That’s between him and God.

[Philsworld]

——>Lots of people claim the Lord, yet don’t believe.

Not true. The don’t OBEY. Therein lies the lawlessness.

[MayflowerMadam]

I used to think a lot about people like Ravi, but not whether they were truly saved or not. Only God knows.

I wondered about people, especially preachers, who professed salvation, and led people to the Lord. If the preacher wasn’t truly saved, then how does that affect the status of those who were saved under his teaching?

This was in the context of my father, a preacher, a mean abusive SOB. Good chance some “impure” issues occurred, too, but I’m not sure about that.

What about these people who went on to be missionaries and led hundreds to the Lord starting in the 1940s? I concluded they WERE saved, as it was the Holy Spirit that convicted them and worked in their lives, not Dad.

[Philsworld]

——>What about these people who went on to be missionaries and led hundreds to the Lord starting in the 1940s?

Hard to say. How many people did Ravi lead to the Lord? Probably many thousands. Unfortunately, Ravi led a life of sin (lawlessness). We are all going to be judged by the law of God. That is 100% bible truth. Those who don’t believe that are in big trouble.

——>If the preacher wasn’t truly saved, then how does that affect the status of those who were saved under his teaching?

Salvation is between you and God, and no one else. But, that pastor/teacher who gave them bogus information is certainly going to be held to a higher standard. How about those in 3rd world countries who believe their leader is Christ? Should they have known the truth? Yes. Unfortunately, they were deceived.

[Mr Rogers]

“Not true. The don’t OBEY.”

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think scripture strongly agrees with me. Going to church or being a church leader doesn’t mean squat. Being “born again” does. As Hebrews put it, quoting the old testament:

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
17 then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

It is that internal change, when the Holy Spirit starts to change you from the inside out, that is important. If that hasn’t happened, you never believed - because GOD DOES NOT LIE OR BREAK HIS PROMISES!

An apostate is different. It is someone who HAS been blessed by the Spirit - whose presence IS our seal - who then DECIDES to reject God. Both Hebrews and Romans are pretty clear that this can happen. I find it rare. I find the vast majority of “lawlessness” in the church is from tares pretending to be wheat. Jesus promised us that would happen as well.

Anyone can call themselves a believer. But God knows the heart, and the Holy Spirit won’t enter the heart of a phony.

[af_vet_1981]

MacArthur's position on eternal security is rooted in his understanding of key biblical passages and Reformed theological principles.

Scripture and tradition…
but 1500 years later without apostolic authority

which leads to more confusion.

[RoosterRedux]

Are you referring to confusion of theology by John MacArthur? What specifically are you referring to?

Thx.

[af_vet_1981]

Are you referring to confusion of theology by John MacArthur? What specifically are you referring to?

The proposition that “his understanding of eternal security is rooted in key biblical passages and Reformed theological principles.”

It is cognitive dissonance to reject 15 or more centuries of scripture and tradition to then reformulate scripture and tradition, without messianic and apostolic authority, in one’s own faith community’s image.

[RoosterRedux]

Thank you for explaining.

I think you are making a quantum leap of an assumption if you conclude that he hasn't based his understanding on everything known since the death and resurrection of our Lord (and before), including all writings of the early church fathers.

Just because Catholics know nothing about Protestant writings doesn't mean that Protestants haven't studied what was said and published before the Reformation (if that is what you are referring to).

MacArthur's problems with Catholicism relate mostly to the Papacy and the unbiblical syncretism of goddess worship. Not to Scriptural theology.

[af_vet_1981]

Just because Catholics know nothing about Protestant writings … would, it seems to me, constitute making a quantum leap of an assumption.

The Protestant movement has as much authority as the Samaritan movement. Both separated from the earlier flock and argued for their interpretations. Neither have succession authority. Jesus loves anyone who comes to the Father through Him, so there will be some Samaritans, some Protestants, and some Catholics in the Kingdom, Jews and Gentiles.

[RoosterRedux]

Thank you for that kind reply.:-)

[Campion]

Satan, through the Papacy ... says otherwise. He says focus on Literal Israel, not him and the Papacy.

Reality check, Phil -- "the Papacy" is not onboard with "Literal Israel" (of today) being connected with "Biblical End time prophecy," and never has been.

About all Rome has said on the topic is that the conversion of the Jews (which may, or may not, have anything to do with the contemporary nation-state of Israel) has to precede the Second Coming.

[Philsworld]

——>Phil: Satan, through the Papacy ... says otherwise. He says focus on Literal Israel, not him and the Papacy.

——>Campion: Reality check, Phil — “the Papacy” is not onboard with “Literal Israel” (of today) being connected with “Biblical End time prophecy,” and never has been.

Maybe you should read my statement again? Because, that’s not what I’m saying. The Papacy doesn’t care about Literal Israel in the least. But, they do care about deflecting attention away from the Reformer’s HISTORICAL accusation, BASED ON THE BIBLE, that they are the Antichrist power, Little Horn, Man of Sin, First Beast of Revelation 13, and Son of Perdition (one in the same). During the Reformation period, they INVENTED Preterism and Futurism (modern dispensationalism), to do just that. The focus on literal Israel is part of that lie.

Here are the ones directly responsible: It’s not even debatable, because it part of recorded history.

Francisco Ribera (Jesuit)
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (Jesuit)
Michael Walpole (Jesuit)
Manuel De Lacunza (Jesuit)

Then, you have these people cleaning up in aisle 1, making futurism what it is today.

Edward Irving
Margaret McDonald (ecstatic utterances)
Samuel Roffey Maitland
James H. Todd
John Henry Newman
John Nelson Darby
Arno C. Gaebelein
Cyrus Ingerson Scofield
Samuel Untermeyer
Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Philsworld]

The whole point of OSAS/OJAJ is that a person is ONCE AND FOREVER saved and judged, at the microsecond of grace, at their decision to accept Christ. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING after that moment can alter their salvation. There is no PROCESS of salvation. They say PAST AND FUTURE SINS all forgiven. They are not held responsible for future sin, BECAUSE THEIR SPIRIT CAN’T SIN. Therefore, they can’t sin. Therefore, they are not held responsible. They say that if they do sin, God is sad. Fellowship with Him suffers. They may get a crown with fewer jewels in it or less good stuff in heaven that they would have otherwise received, if they had sinned less on earth. But, THEY ARE STILL GOING TO BE IN HEAVEN. Someone who graduated from a Bible College told me that. Another chimed in that sin and God’s law only applied to the UNSAVED, because, OSAS/OJAJ can’t sin. The phrase “the wages of sin is death” does not apply to OSAS/OJAJ. They all believe that they will be in heaven. Let me also say that REPENTANCE to the OSAS/OJAJ is NOT mandatory. Take Ravi as the example. Whether he repented or not, he’s still going to heaven, BECAUSE, salvation was determined at that microsecond of grace.

Every single OSAS/OJAJ Christian started their journey genuinely accepting Christ as their savior, “born again”. They had faith unto salvation....Grace. I am here to tell you that God takes every one of them at their word. At that point, they are BLAMELESS, as blameless as the thief on the cross. And, if they died moments later, they will be in heaven. Judgment wasn’t an issue for the thief on the cross. It is for everyone else who then lives their life claiming to be a Christian. Because we will all be judged by the law of God and judgment starts at the house of the Lord.

Not one of these OSAS/OJAJ would CHOOSE to reject their own salvation. If it happens, it will be of their own doing, because of LAWLESSNESS.

23And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

[Mr Rogers]

“Not one of these OSAS/OJAJ would CHOOSE to reject their own salvation.”

Hebrews says you are wrong. So does Romans 11:

“19 But you will say, “Yes, but the branches were broken off to make room for me.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because they did not believe, while you remain in place because you do believe. But do not be proud of it; instead, be afraid. 21 God did not spare the Jews, who are like natural branches; do you think he will spare you? 22 Here we see how kind and how severe God is. He is severe toward those who have fallen, but kind to you—if you continue in his kindness. But if you do not, you too will be broken off.”

To repeat for emphasis: “He is severe toward those who have fallen, but kind to you—if you continue in his kindness. But if you do not, you too will be broken off.”