God’s Absolute Sovereignty - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------------------

Dr. MacArthur is a Calvinist. Calvinism is a theological system promulgated by John Calvin in the 1500s, a collection of odd doctrines that have gained wide acceptance and are fiercely defended by its adherents. Calvinism is roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:

• Total depravity - people do not have the ability to participate in the salvation process in any way.
• Unconditional election - those who God chose to be saved are the elect.
• Limited atonement - Jesus died only for the elect.
• Irresistible grace - the elect cannot resist salvation.
• Perseverance of the saints - the elect cannot lose or forfeit their salvation.

Notice that none of these doctrines have anything to do with Christian living, generosity, worship, growing in faith, or living a holy life. They simply aren't relevant. But they are endlessly explained by the likes of Dr. MacArthur, which is really the purpose of his article. He's not explaining Christianity or even God's sovereignty, he's explaining Calvinism.

He wrestles with the conflicts created by his Calvinistic doctrine. Recognizing that he backs himself into theological corners, Dr. MacArthur declares that the reasons are unknowable and simply moves on. Now, we should say that we are not suggesting that everything about God is explainable, but rather that Calvinism makes it harder.

The main issue here, however, is the idea of God's sovereignty. We think Dr. MacArthur misuses the term. Sovereignty is simply the power or authority to rule. But to Calvinists like Dr. MacArthur sovereignty means absolute control. That is, because God is sovereign He is required to control everything. We think, however, that God gets to define His own sovereignty, that He isn't required to exercise His power simply because He possesses it, and that free will does not limit God's power or majesty in any way.

This means that the word must be misdefined to fit Calvinistic doctrine. The Bible doesn't really use the word in the manner Dr. MacArthur does. In the OT it is Yahweh Adonai [God the Lord; for example, in Ge. 15:2 where the NIV translates it "Sovereign Lord"]. The NT, also in the NIV, has several instances of "Sovereign Lord," but here we find single word, kurios [Lord or Master; for example, Matt 4:10] or despotés [ruler, for example, Luke 2:29]. "Sovereign" isn't in the Greek.

Lastly, we are thankful he quotes a good amount of Scripture, something surprisingly rare among some of these so-called Bible teachers. All of the verses are the standard ones Calvinists appeal to. 

-------------------------

Justice and Unconditional Forgiveness - by John MacArthur

Found here.

We have frequently taken issue with Dr. MacArthur's suspect teaching, but today we are happy to celebrate a very good article.

------------------------

The Arraignment of Mankind - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

Dr. MacArthur has been appearing our blog more frequently lately. We have come to notice that he doesn't really teach the Bible. He teaches his doctrine, Calvinism. Everything revolves around this. If he can't fit his Calvinism in, he won't teach on it.

This may explain why so many people think he's a great Bible teacher. He's really good at Calvinism. For us, this makes him a bad Bible teacher.

Today he makes the common Calvinistic error that the issues of our sinful state and ultimate salvation is a legal proceeding, in the manner we understand law in the western world. 

However, there is no such thing in the pages of the Bible. There is no arraignment, no trial, no attorneys, no right to a presumption of innocence, and no jury. There is not even a pronouncement of "guilty." 

No, we are already dead and condemned: 

Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already...

Ro. 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Every man, woman, and child ever born on this earth (except one), was born dead. We all were "condemned already," caused by the "one trespass." Adam's sin brought death and condemnation. That is the default state of man. Already condemned.

Which means of course that there is no trial. The condemnation against Adam, death, happened thousands of years ago. We simply are born into the state of death and decay and bondage that creation experienced (Ro. 8:20) when Adam was condemned (Ro. 5:16). Sinning is what dead, condemned people do.

Which of course means that the Dr. MacArthur's entire premise is false.

-----------------------------

Election and Christ - by John MacArthur

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

Dr. MacArthur is regarded as a great Bible teacher, but the below excerpt is very nearly incompetence. This sounds harsh, but he's simply parroting a Calvinistic/Reformist doctrinal perspective without offering biblical documentation.

His central idea is that Jesus substituted Himself for us and took our punishment, which did not happen. Rather, He died to spill His blood to wash away our sin. 

We are pretty certain that no Christian views Jesus' blood as insufficient to save a man. Nothing needs to be added to the blood; nothing needs to supplement His death. The blood is enough.

Nothing else. Period. Nothing else is needed, including the punishment of Jesus.

If God's wrath against the sinner is totally appeased by Jesus' blood when he repents, why would Dr. MacArthur think that His wrath must land somewhere else? This is the crucial question, and why we believe the Father did not punish Jesus for our sin.

Read this carefully: If the Father punished Jesus for our sin, then He didn't forgive at all, He simply redirected his wrath and carried it out anyway.

We've got to land solidly on this, dear reader. Propitiation is appeasement/satisfaction of God's wrath. If He punished Jesus His wrath wasn't appeased by Jesus' death. The blood wasn't enough. The sacrifice did not propitiate. 

If that's true the Father went out looking for someone to punish because His wrath didn't go away. It landed on Jesus.

This is an evil idea. It is deception to believe the Father punished Jesus. It violates the character of God to not be satisfied with Jesus' sacrifice. 

Jesus had already did everything needed to satisfy the Father. Appeasement negates punishment. Appeasement ends the matter. When someone is appeased, it's over. The blood is enough.

All of the following statements are based on this pernicious idea that the Father punished Jesus. All the following are bare assertions, and in our opinion, quite false.

-----------------------

An Eternal Expression of Love - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------

Dr. MacArthur takes a stab at explaining his Calvinism and makes some grievous errors. Maybe in some things he is great Bible teacher, but frankly, we have yet to see that. 

------------------------------

Making Sense of Grace and Election - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------

In this article Dr. MacArthur obsesses about Election, a Calvinistic doctrine that's of little use. We say this because the doctrine changes nothing about living a holy, obedient life, being generous, bearing fruit, or worshiping God more adequately. It does not come to bear on any aspect of a Christian's life.

But more to the point, Dr. MacArthur is unable to lay his finger upon a Scripture which teaches that God chose everyone who will be saved. Likely because it's not found in the Bible.

Further, he never defines terms like "grace" or "sovereignty."

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------------

Doctrine: The Key to Christian Living - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

Dr. MacArthur muddled thinking is plainly on display here. He first sets a false choice, knowing Bible doctrine versus completely avoiding all Bible doctrine. For him, knowing Bible doctrine is attaining doctrinal perfection. That is his highest goal, his evidence of spiritual maturity. Thus the continual refinement of doctrine is mistaken for growing in faith.

If people don't share his love for the pursuit of better and better doctrine, they don't believe in doctrinal at all. Thus they cannot please God, because they cannot grow in their Christian walk.

We would think that the Holy Spirit is the key to Christian living. We also think that the encouragement of the brethren is an important component. Doctrine, especially as presented by Dr. MacArthur, is merely the accumulation of Bible facts. 

That's not maturity of faith.

---------------------------

Looking For Truth in All the Wrong Places - by John MacArthur (excerpt)

Excepted from here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

We have considered quite a few of Dr. MacArthur's teachings in our blog and have found them to be less than satisfying. 

He spends a lot of time in this article trumpeting the importance of Scripture, more than 1600 words. Yet he can be troubled to quote only a summary of one Scripture and a snippet of another. 

It seems he really doesn't want to teach the Bible, he wants to talk about present-day believers with whom he disagrees. Any thoughtful Bible student would not be interested in what contemporary Christians do or don't do, he would want the biblical case. 

Dr. MacArthur doesn't really bother.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------------

Not Sparing His Own Son - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------

This article is not really about God not sparing His Son, it's about Calvinistic predestination. Dr. MacArthur does spend a little time on the topic contained in his title, but he really wants to discuss his Calvinism.

We are disappointed in Dr. MacArthur's rhetorical manipulation. He makes a series of true statements but follows each with a non sequitur conclusion. This is either dishonest or ignorant.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

---------------------------

Did Christ Become Sinful on Our Behalf? - by Jeremiah Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

It is a Calvinist/reformist perspective that the Father punished Jesus instead of us, a doctrine called Penal Substitutionary Atonement. We discuss this problematic doctrine here. We assert that the Father did not punish Jesus for our sin. Nor did Jesus pay for our sin.

Why?

The OT sacrifices were never regarded as sinful. The Jews never punished the animals. They never looked at the animals as substituting for them. The Jews never regarded the sacrificial animals as payment for their sin. The blood, and it alone, was regarded as the effective agent regarding their sin. Jesus's spilled blood was exactly the same. The OT sacrifices were typology pointing to Christ. He was the sacrificial Lamb of God whose spilled blood washed us of our sin. His blood alone is sufficient to propitiate for us.

Further, he carried our sins to the Cross like one would carry out a sack of garbage. He was our burden-bearer: 

1Pe. 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

So if we rightly regard Jesus as our sacrifice, the One who carried away our sins to the cross (Col. 2:14), we no longer need to think the Father punished Him. Think about it. If the blood is sufficient no punishment is necessary.

The verse in question is 2 Corinthians 5:21: 

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The author will claim that this means Jesus was imputed with our sin. We disagree. Let's look at some of the words. It says God made Him to be sin. "Made" is the word poieó, which means I make, manufacture, construct. The literal Greek is 

The (one) having not known sin for us sin he made... 

The man Jesus was constructed, made for a purpose. Not imputed. He was "made sin" to reconcile us to God, which is what we read just a couple of verses before:

2Co. 5:19...God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ... 

Further, poieó has many shades of meaning in the Greek. One that caught our eye was this:

to (make i. e.) constitute or appoint one anything...

Poieó (made) is the same word used here:

Ac. 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

And here:

He. 3:1-2 Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. 2 He was faithful to the one who appointed him...

Jesus was appointed to the position of Lord and Christ, the position of apostle and high priest, and to the position of sin. It's a position, not an imputation. Nothing about His nature changed. The Father basically said, "Go, here's your position." Therefore, His position on earth was sin, and it is now apostle and high priest.

We certainly cannot say that Jesus was imputed with being Lord and Christ. He was not imputed with apostle and high priest. Therefore, He was also not imputed with our sin.

If Jesus was not imputed with our sin, and if He did not substitute for us, then what is the meaning of 2Co. 5:21? He was indeed positionally appointed to be sin, but crucially, the verse does not say He was made to be our sin. Many Christians tend to read themselves into Scripture, assuming everything is about them. 

This might be a mistake.

We think it possible that Paul was actually discussing His incarnation as much as His sacrifice. That is, Jesus' position as a man. Here's what we mean:

Ro. 8:3-4 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

All the same concepts are here that are also in 2Co. 5:21, expanded with some additional information. One thing leaps out at us: "In the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." This is very interesting phrasing. This is where our speculation about Him being made sin leads us.

In this scenario it isn't about our sin at all, but rather His position. He was appointed to being incarnated in the likeness of sinful man to offer himself as a ransom for many. Therefore, we think "He was made sin" means "he was made in the form of sinful flesh."

Let's retranslate:

2Co. 5:21 God appointed him who was unacquainted with sin to the position of a sinful man, for our benefit...

Admittedly this is speculation, but we think it solves a lot of doctrinal problems if it's true.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only one Scripture passage besides the subject verse. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

------------------------

Is Music Worship? - John MacArthur

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

It seems that every MacArthur sermon or article we read causes us to wonder how this man can be regarded as a stellar Bible teacher. We don't wish to dishonor the man, but we are fully willing to examine and evaluate his teaching.

Today we have excerpted his sermon about contemporary worship music. That's his target. He doesn't tell us about why his opinion is better, only that contemporary worship music is Satan's music and doesn't belong in the church.

Though he does quote Scripture, none of it comes to bear on his assertions.

This is simply bad Bible teaching.)

Defining Discernment - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

We cannot figure out why people think Dr. MacArthur is a stellar teacher. We have rarely read anything written by him that would indicate this. 

Today's article is another sorry example of Bad Bible Teaching. 

-------------------

The Living and Active Word of God - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

Dr. MacArthur ably explains the wonderful value and utility of Scripture, but bases his presentation on the wrong verse:

He. 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

This verse is not talking about the Bible. "Word" here is Logos:

II. Its use as respects the mind, alone, Latinratio; i. e.:

1. reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating, etc.: once so in the phrase ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the divine mind, pervading and noting all things by its proper force, Hebrews 4:12. 

That is, Logos is the expression of the mind of God, ultimately the things He says. The same word is used here: 

Jn. 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Logos is not graphé, the word found here:

2Ti. 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

Dr. MacArthur would have us believe that the writer of Hebrews was referring to the Bible. This is incorrect.

----------------------------

Marks of a True Apostle - by John MacArthur - Strange Fire Conference

Our comments in bold.

---------------

The strange fire conference was held about 10 years ago, and it was dedicated to attacking charismatic Christians. Though a decade ago, the fallout continues to this day, resulting in all sorts of errant teaching.

Now, we certainly do not claim that every charismatic Christian has perfect doctrine, but neither do cessationist Christians like Dr. MacArthur. 

Today we combine several articles regarding Dr. McArthur's false teaching about apostles. It troubles us that Dr. MacArthur is unable to examine these issues clearly, yet he is considered a stellar Bible teacher.

Dr. MacArthur provides five false criteria as marks of a true apostle. He concludes with a completely astonishing lack of logical thought to assert that because there aren't apostles there aren't other spiritual gifts.

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

------------------------

Heaven's Perspective on the Cross: Substitute - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

We recently commented upon another article from this series written by John MacArthur.

Dr. MacArthur's doctrine regarding Jesus' sacrifice is largely based on the misunderstanding of a single word, "for," which is found in several of his cited verses, like 2 Corinthians 5:14:

One died for all.

The Greek word is huper, which means on behalf of, for the sake of. It does not mean instead of. 

Jesus died for our benefit, not in our place. In fact, the whole idea of Jesus substituting Himself in our place for punishment is preposterous. No courtroom would accept the idea of an innocent party volunteering to be punished in the place of a guilty party.

-----------------

Heaven's Perspective on the Cross: Sacrifice - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------

Dr. MacArthur wants to correct a misconception about Jesus' sacrificial death. Apparently this is a grave doctrinal situation. He makes a big deal out of the distinction between Christ's death for us and what His death meant regarding the Father. 

But he commits several crucial errors. He never tells us why the distinction is important. He misrepresents the OT sacrifices. He selectively quotes Scripture, leaving out parts of verses that contradict him.

This is unfortunate considering his reputation as a stellar Bible teacher.

The question we always consider when reading a Bible teaching is, what is the relevance to the Christian walk? If a teaching has little or no bearing on holiness, service, worship, maturity of faith, fellowship, or generosity, then it is simply an empty intellectual exercise. 

That is the case for this article. Ordinarily we would deem such a thing "bad Bible teaching," but we think that "irrelevant Bible teaching" is more applicable.

------------------

Foreword to A Biblical Case for Cessationism - by JOHN MACARTHUR

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------------

Dr. MacArthur makes many assertions, but quotes only a couple of words of Scripture. This is alarmingly typical for these cessationists. He makes claim after claim, but He doesn't quote a single Bible verse. Not one.

Now, we realize this is a forward to a book written by Tom Pennington and not a teaching. But we have examined Dr. MacArthur's presentations quite often in this blog, and his pattern is to avoid Scripture and to make unsupported statements. So we make our evaluation based on his track record. And it is disappointing. 

Lastly, Dr. MacArthur wants to talk about present-day charismatics, but that has nothing to do with "The Biblical Case For Cessationism. We shall note these with red typeface.

------------------------

The Seven Last Sayings of Christ: A Petition to the Father - by John MacArthur ("Why have you forsaken me?")

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------------

Today's article is a cobbled-together rehash of the Doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. We discuss this false teaching here. We will also elaborate below.

Dr. MacArthur does quote some Scripture, thankfully, but his documentation disappears at the very moments he asserts his Critical Premises. 

Dr. MacArthur is reading through the lens of his doctrine, and that leads him astray.

-------------------

Should Fallen Pastors Be Restored? - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

While we share Dr. MacArthur's concern when these sinning pastors so quickly re-appear in the pulpit, sometimes after very serious sin, we reject the idea that there is no possibility for restoration to the pulpit. We would embrace a broader criteria, since sin of every kind is present in the Church and potentially disqualifying for every person (1Co. 9:27, Col. 2:18), not just pastors.

Dr. MacArthur lists two disqualifiers, failure to be above reproach, and failure to be a one-woman man. He derives these from 1Ti. 3:2:

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife...

So, a pastor who falls into sexual sin violates these criteria, according to Dr. MacArthur. And from that he concludes that it is a permanent disqualifier. But that is a leap, because there is no Scripture that tells us this. 

In fact, the Bible is replete with examples of leaders who sinned and stumbled, even severely, yet were not disqualified from leadership. David, Samson, Paul, Peter, Noah, Abraham, Jacob... it's a long list. Murders, adulterers, hypocrites, and liars. Yet God used them powerfully. They are historical giants of faith.

Perhaps Dr. MacArthur thinks that the dividing line is when a man is saved. That is, a grievous sinner, once saved and having grown to maturity of faith, is qualified to lead. Like this man, a former porn star who is now a pastor. Or maybe not. Maybe Dr. MacArthur believes that any serious sin in someone's history disqualifies them. But every man who comes into the Kingdom has a past, so it seems clear that past sins should not necessarily disqualify.

What does the Bible tell us about restoration? Dr. MacArthur never tells us. In fact, he manages to quote only a single Scripture in his whole presentation. It seems important to discuss restoration as a concept in an article questioning restoration, particularly the biblical case.

We find that the church has a responsibility to restore:

Ga. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

The word "restore" means exactly fit (adjust) to be in good working order, i.e. adjusted exactly "down" to fully function. So a leader or pastor or any Christian who sins needs to be put back to full function, if at all possible. The person needs to be restored to "good working order." That must always be the goal. No sin should disqualify any truly repentant person to return to their God-given gifts.

This requires repentance, counseling, examining of subsequent fruit, and continued accountability and evaluation. It is not done quickly or casually. But there is no hint that restoration isn't possible or isn't permissible.

We should also mention that the Bible does not teach that pastors lead churches, the elders do (1Pe. 5:1-3). We therefore think the greatest problem is not that pastors fall, it's that pastors are placed too high. They occupy unbiblical positions at the top of the pyramid. They have too much power, they are subject to too many expectations, and they carry a burden God never put on them. Of course they would tend to fail in such an environment.

Churches are to be led by a team of godly men, not a CEO pastor. This fact could be a least a part of the solution to pastoral missteps.

---------------------

How Does the Spirit Work Through Scripture? - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Dr. MacArthur is continuing his series. We have commented on other parts of this series here and here.

This is a troubling presentation. First, Dr. MacArthur completely misrepresents various Scriptures, especially regarding "The Word." We love and honor the Scriptures, so please don't think we are minimizing them. But just to be clear, the Bible itself almost never refers to the Word as Scripture. When God speaks, generally this is the Word of God speaking. That is, His speaking is a person, titled the Word of God, the pre-incarnate Jesus.

The Son is the Word, and the Bible is the written Word of God. But the Son, the Word, and the Bible are not interchangeable. The Son exists independently from His titles. His Word exists independently from what has been written down. And what has been written down does not address the totality of what He has said. 

The Word is the things God speaks through His Word Jesus. The Bible is a record of some of that Word, just like a book is a record of some of its author's thoughts. Jesus Himself as a person is both the pinnacle of God's communication as well as the vehicle of His communication in these last days (He. 1:1-2). 

God is recorded as having written only three things: The ten commandments (Ex. 31:18), on Belshazzar's wall (Da. 5:5), and in the dirt (Jn. 8:6). Every other message from God is by Him speaking. This speaking is known as prophecy. Prophecy is God speaking His Word to man. Everything we know about God is because He revealed it by speaking. 

Some of that speaking was written down and collected together into what we call the Bible. The entire Bible is composed of God speaking His Word. There is nothing in the Bible that was not spoken by God. Certainly the Bible records the words of people who spoke, and even the words of spiritual entities, both good and evil, but even those words are in the Bible because of God's intention.

Second, Dr. MacArthur wants there to be a difference between illumination and revelation. The former is for contemporary believers, but the latter is only for the apostles 2000 years ago. We believe this is incorrect.

The Greek word "illumination" is 

phótizó, bring to light, make evident, reveal

We find the word here, translated "enlightened:"

Ep. 1:17-18 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know...

Notice that Paul also uses the word "revelation" in this passage. That word is 

apokalupsis, revelation, unveiling

So Paul uses BOTH words in his prayer for the Ephesian church. He wants them illumined and he wants them to have the Spirit of revelation. And both things are so that they will "know." Lest we think that Paul was not referring to direct revelation, later in his letter he writes:

Ep. 3:2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation...

This passage uses the same word, apokalupsis. Here Paul wants the Ephesian church understand the revelation he was given, which happens to be the same word he applied to them in Ep. 1:17-18 regarding THEIR understanding. Thus it is clear that Paul does not claim that receiving revelation was unique to him. He wants the Ephesian church to have revelation like he did. 

With these things clearly in mind, we will be able to see the profound errors of Dr. MacArthur's presentation.

----------------------