John Macarthur Cult Watch Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
waldens

User
Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #1 
(this protest has already been personally communicated to all mentioned in this protest
as they do not respond, I lay it before you. All points based on PUBLIC knowledge and developements.)

Matthew 7:1-5  Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
 

' The roll of eschatology in the Doctor of Ministry program is critical . Because as I said it is the end of everything, the consummation, it is the point at which God's Glory is finally reaching its Apex. It matters, it is the finale of redemptive history, Gospel salvation history .....' 

(Dr. John Macarthur)

 

 PROTEST FROM A SHEEP OF CHRIST AGAINST DR. JOHN MACARTHUR PERSONALLY AND HIS MAGISTERIUM (BEING THE SPEAKERS OF SHEPHERD'S CONFERENCE 2016 plus the leadership of GTY, TMS, TMC and TMAI)

Dr. John MacArthur,

As a protest AGAINST YOU this email.

"It was in regard to other subjects bearing on unfulfilled prophecy that they left no united testimony. Several of these subjects received little attention from the first generation of Reformers and, with one exception, they were left for their successors to take up. The exception was the unanimous belief that the Papal system is both the 'man of sin' and the Babylonian whore of which Scripture forwarns (2 Thess. 2; Rev. 19). In the conviction of sixteenth-century Protestants, Rome was the great Anti-Christ, and so firmly did this belief become established that it was not until the nineteenth century that it was seriously questioned by evangelicals. "

(Source: The Puritan Hope, page 41, edition 1984, Iain H. Murray, Banner of Truth)

When you have Iain H. Murray of Banner of Truth write in your biography that you cherish a 1563 copy of John Foxe’s book of Martyrs (which clearly confesses the pope to be THE antichrist) while you at the same time as headpastor of GTY and president of TMS

1.     have your doulos yearly sign a doctrinal statement that denies the witness of John Foxe and the Christian martyrs against Rome,

2.     have sold 1.8 million of your studybibles worldwide in many languages which deny the witness of John Foxe and the Christian martyrs  against Rome,

3.    in 2016 are planned as mainspeaker at T4G 2016 whose promo video denies the witness of John Foxe and the Christian martyrs  against Rome,

4.    in 2014 from the pulpit at Grace To You preached the Islamic Magdi as THE antichrist of 2Thess2 and Revelation instead of the Pope in Rome as John Foxe and the Christian martyrs did,

5.    have joined GTY as partner in Brazil via Fiel Ministries to Martin Bucer Seminary whose Rektor is Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher who visits the Pope in Rome and the Global Christian Forum as their friend,

6.     now can hear your yearlong close brother Phil Johnson describe publicly how he would envision a visit of the Pope of Rome to GTY as nothing more than a non-public intellectual exercise of exchanging doctrines without caling the Pope THE antichrist whose church has the blood of millions of martyrs on its hands described in John Foxe’s book of Christian martyrs,

7.   have approved of Dr. Joel R Beeke who already has been 3 years full member of Refo500 of Prof. Dr. Selderhuis whose organisation worldwide seeks unity between protestants and roman-catholics,

8.   have approved of Dr. Joel R Beeke to teach at your D.Min program at TMS who brought out recently 20.000 RHB KJV Studybibles in which the witness of John Foxe and the Christian martyrs against Rome is denied,

9.    have approved of Dr. Joel R Beeke and Dr. Carl Trueman at your D.Min Program at TMS who in 2016 are planned as mainspeakers at a conference in the Netherlands on 400 years John Owen together with the faculty of corrupt theological universities in the Netherlands who are swimming the Tiber, organised by the Theological University Apeldoorn to which Prof. Dr. Selderhuis, Director Refo500, belongs,

10.  know that your Director of the D.Min program in Brazil October 2015 has presented himself as mainspeaker with Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher, Rektor of Martin Bucer Seminary, who afterwards publicly boasted himself of being at the Vatican and later in Albania where he denied the blood of the Christian martyrs of John Foxe’s book of martyrs by saying the RC is forgiven for 600 years of Inquisition.

 Dr. John MacArthur, if you in your doctrinal statement of both GTY and TMS have another view on the end of Redemptive History…..

as testified by the Holy Spirit in the lives of John Foxe’s and the Christian martyrs described in your copy from 1563 of John Foxe book of martyrs,

as described in biblical eschatology (according to your public statements on Youtube THE APEX AND FINALE OF REDEMPTIVE HISTORY) which you consider CRITICAL for a true minister of the Lord Jesus Christ,……

Are the mentioned 10 points than not proof that your spiritual judgement about who is a true and false minister of the Lord Jesus Christ is FALSE and WRONG ?

 

A sheep in the wilderness, A PROTESTANT, considered by your worshippers Phil Johnson, Anthony Mathenia, Paul Washer and JD Hall less than dust and/or their spiritual enemy.

watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #2 
Waldens,

There is much evidence that John Macarthur is ecumenical. His father was close with men who formed the NAE.  I recall that one of Macarthur's TMAI centers was partnering with a member of the WCC.  Macarthur is I believe a member of many ecumenical orgs: NAE, NRB, CBMW and maybe the ACE.  And it doesn't surprise me that Macarthur approves of and partners with men who seek unity with Rome (though he publicly opposes the RCC).  I also know that Macarthur has stated falsely that Islam's Mahdi is the biblical Antichrist.  All Christians know that the RCC/Vatican is a false religious system and the enemy of Jesus Christ.  Having said that, I believe the Pope is an antichrist, but not the Antichrist who will reign during the Great Tribulation.  So I disagree with J Foxe.  I believe the Antichrist will not come from Rome, but will be a Jew from British Israel and from the Tribe of Dan. See THE LOST TRIBE OF DAN: THE EARLY JEWISH & CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE IDENTITY OF THE ANTICHRIST

But setting aside whether the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist, it should be alarming to Christians that John Macarthur is associated with men who visit the Vatican and who seek unity with Rome.  I have never heard of the men and institutions you have mentioned.  Can you give some more information about Martin Bucer Seminary, Rektor Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher, Dr. Joel R Beeke, Refo500, Prof. Dr. Selderhuis and how Macarthur is connected with them? 


bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #3 
To reply to some of your points...
You are correct about the Foxe's Book of Martyrs, MacArthur had it on display in his office when I was still in the organization.  What is interesting about this, is that MacArthur has changed his view on this since I was there, as he was still teaching Rome was the whore of Babylon from Revelations and that the Pope was the antichrist, with the final pope being the ruler who would be the final antichrist at the end times.  No mention at that time was made of Islam playing a role in eschatology.  Now, I don't know if maybe 9/11 or any events since then changed their minds or if they are wanting a more ecumenical stance I'm not sure.  I do know Greg Searcy gave a weekly seminar on the RC church while he was pastor of Placerita Baptist and at TMS.  Searcy tore the Catholic church apart during this, and he had family who were killed by Catholics during a riot in Ireland where Protestants and Catholics frequently have this type of turmoil.

Phil Johnson's interview shows they pretty much have their own eschatology.  What he is doing there is putting down all other protestant denominations, and says evangelicals themselves are no longer evangelicals.  If he would tell the truth their belief is that they are the only ones saved, and if you don't accept "lordship salvation" you are believing in "cheap grace" and not saved.  So, he is using the Pope as a tool to condemn all other Christians, like only GCC finds these issues important and the Pope tells a worldly message to accommodate all others, while avoiding the issues MacArthur focuses on like abortion, reformation theology, counseling, etc.  This interview is nothing but propaganda to reinforce the us vs them mentality that MacArthur and Johnson are going for in their followers.

MacArthur's new eschatology seems to be that Islam is nothing but a reverse of Christian eschatology, and that their Christ will be Christianity's antichrist, who will somehow temporarily convince Israel of a truce, get them and others in the world to take the mark of the beast (cashless society), and then anyone who repents (accepts lordship salvation) will be forgiven, even if they accepted the mark and followed the false Christ.  While anyone who knows the Bible knows this is incompatible with scripture, the sheeple at GCC can't get it because they have been convinced they follow "sola scriptura," in that as long as their elders are deriving doctrine from scripture alone it must be right.  They don't realize they are doing the same thing they accuse Catholics and charismatics of, that is accepting the interpretation of the Bible by their leaders over what the Bible actually says.  Thus, the need of being reminded of what they believe through the study bible and reference set.
watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #4 
Waldens,

I recall when Macarthur received an award from the NRB.  I remember seeing Macarthur listed on the CBMW website.  When Ted Haggard was exposed for homosexuality as the president of the NAE, I called GCC to ask why Macarthur could be a member of an org with this guy as its president.  I've forgotten about his connection to ACE...if he has one. 

The article John Macarthur's Ecumenical Roots is of interest and it shows that Macarthur's father was very close with the men who formed the NAE.  As far as the other orgs, I'm not sure I have written about Macarthur's association with them.

We know that Macarthur teaches many things that are unbiblical.  He has the Trinity wrong, endtimes wrong, blood of Christ wrong, mark of beast wrong, gospel wrong with his works based gospel.  Let's use this forum to shed light on Macarthur and to warn others about Macarthur rather than debating about eschatology.  It's enough to know that Macarthur now teaches the Islam's Mahdhi will be the Antichrist...and we have video evidence for this.       
watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #5 
For years Macarthur taught that Jesus Christ was not the son of God until his incarnation.  You can read about that here: John Macarthur's position on the eternal sonship of Christ.  This is quite thoroughly researched in 13 parts as you can see.  Now supposedly Macarthur publicly repented of this position.  But did he?  if you read the TMS beliefs about Jesus Christ, then Macarthur states that Jesus Christ "assumed the role of a son" at his incarnation implying that he wasn't the son before.  So Macarthur has never repented of this heretical position. 
You can read it here, which is one of the 13 parts:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/sonjm13.htm

This is taken directly from The Masters Seminary's doctrinal statement:

"We teach that, in the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity laid aside His right to the full prerogatives of coexistence with God, assumed the place of a Son, and took on an existence appropriate to a servant while never divesting Himself of His divine attributes (Philippians 2:5-8)."
bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #6 
I can't speak for watchmanwakes, but if eschatology were the only issue MacArthur had ever lied about or reversed positions on I would not be here right now.  My biggest reasons for warning others about this cult is the mind control tactics, harassing of critics, abuse of followers, constant lying about doctrines to potential converts, using front groups, and other behaviors that have all the characteristics of a dangerous cult. 

I do agree the doctrines are an abomination and not Christian, like denying the atonement and eternal sonship of Christ, saying you can repent after taking the mark of the beast, shunning of family members, confession of sins to a counselor, etc.  However, they are marketing their cult as run of the mill Christianity taking large portions of time and money from followers.  I disagree with other cults but they are not putting "community church" or "Bible church" or "evangelical" on their doorpost while defining terms Christians are familiar with in different ways so they can slowly conditioning you to their doctrines.

I have known Reformed students who showed up at the college with the false notion MacArthur was Reformed, and some left after one or two semesters because they quickly realized either you convert or get shunned.  The outer shell of MacArthur's teachings have some ideas taken from the Reformed (sovereignty of God doctrine is copied from Calvin), however it is a hodge podge of several theological systems so that it appeals to everyone at first, but once they clamp down there is no allowance of any deviation.  I believe the truth is MacArthur could care less what reformers thought about Catholocism, he only teaches what is convenient at the time, as the video watchmanwakes posted about his view on Calvary Chapel shows.

The counseling doctrine has resulted in two suicides and as for the churches countless others have been hurt, lost their families who no longer speak to them, lost large portions of time and money, had their churches taken over, and crimes have been covered up if you check the threads on this board about Texas and Italy.

While the doctrines definitely are a problem, and the connections to the occult watchmanwakes has exposed are a problem as well, their behavior definitely is what makes them a destructive cult.  Please take the time to read some of the other threads on here to see some examples of this.
waldens

User
Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #7 
Watchmanwakes, Bjw,

Thank you for your replies until now.

I have an important request to you.

Please give your strongest critical feedback specifically to mentioned points in the protest against Dr. John Macarthur and the public material given.

Are my conclusions and observations correct ? If not, why not ? 

Do you confirm the link between Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher, Vatican, Martin Bucer Seminary, Fiel Ministries, Grace to You ?

I know you already have responded, but for me it is very important that the protest and the public proof given is confirmed by other christians besides my brother here in the Netherlands.

Kind regards,

Waldens
watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #8 
BJW,

Great points.  And Macarthur definitely wears many hats and a hat for all seasons. 

Waldens,

It's going to take some time to sift through all of the information you have given.  I'm interested in looking into what you have said and I'll try to make comments as I confirm your evidence.  Most of what you have said is all new to me.  For example, I have never heard of any of these men or Martin Bucer Seminary.  Thanks for giving all this info and I appreciate the time you've taken to put it all together.  
waldens

User
Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #9 
Watchmanwakes,

OK, thank you.

Pls take the time you need. If there are others of this forum or brothers and sisters you know who  might benefit from this information, please pass it on. This so they also can (dis)confirm.

This protest is a culmination of about 8 years, starting in 2008 with Paul Washer doing a conference in the Netherlands to T4G 2016.

Kind regards,

waldens
watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #10 
Waldens,

I checked the info you provided on Dr. Schirrmacher, Fiel, M Bucer and GTY and it looks like it is all true and I would say you have done excellent research. 

Let me see if I understand correctly.  Macarthur's GTY partners with Fiel Ministry which put on a conference recently where S Lawson, who works at TMS, was the main speaker.  Also scheduled to speak with Lawson at the conference was Dr. Schirrmacher, who not only heads 2 NGO's of the UN (including the WEA), but is also close partners with the Pope.  Schirrmacher is also the Rector of M Bucer Seminary, which had workshops at the Fiel conference and which provides church leadership course for Fiel Ministry.  The Director of M Bucer Brazil also spoke at the Fiel conference. 

This evidence connects all these "reformed" ministries to a major global ecumenist in Schirrmacher who wants to reunite with Rome.  This is evidence the big reformed ministries are seeking to reunite with Rome. 

Why exactly did Schirrmacher back out of the conference?  Is he the Rector of M Bucer Seminary, or just the branch in Brazil? 

I can verify everything you said except one small point: I couldn't find where M Bucer provided the church leadership courses for Fiel. 

Thanks for this info and I look forward to checking ot more of what you have sent. 
bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #11 
Since you requested a response to all ten points I will give my "critical feedback" to each as you requested.

1.  I went back and read the statement and I see where it says a future antichrist is still to come in a premillennial dispensational fashion.  It is completely against what Reformed theologians, preterists, or amillenialists believe about the antichrist being the Pope.

That said, I think you have stumbled upon part of the mind control this cult uses when it tells its followers one thing yet does another.  GCC teaches a vehemently anti-Catholic theology (see: https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/roman-catholicism ) and even send students on missions trips to high Catholic areas to attempt to convert Catholics to lordship salvation.  I met many former Catholics in my first week alone in the cult.  One woman contacted me for advice because her daughter had to shun her per GCC's policy because she was working for a junk store owned by the Catholic Church.

However, behind the scenes they are very ecumenical.  If you look at the money trail chart watchmanwakes posted on his site you will see they have accepted money on a trail that leads to the UN and various ecumenical groups, even having one program partially funded by Sun Myung Moon.  MacArthur has had dinner meeting with charismatic Jack Hayford and Mormon theologian Robert Millett.  One could argue this is to try to give the cult more legitimacy, but the Bible itself predicts a falling away in the end times and a one world religion.  The exclusivity of salvation they teach is mostly for the benefit of controlling the flock and is not usually disclosed to other churches.

2.  Correct, the study bible is written from the viewpoint of premillennial dispensationalism. 

3.  Also correct, this video is very deceptive about the purpose of Protestantism and lies.  It shows pictures of Anonymous (Occupy Wall Street, free speech advocacy), and sound bytes of Martin Luther King.  Neither of these issues have anything to do with this video or what Protestantism was founded on "Protesting" as claimed, and anonymous has distributed antichristian videos in the past.  The Protest was originally against Catholicism, which was likely the original origin of the name "protestant," not to protest the political issues of the day.  Also, the claim of salvation by grace alone apart from works is out the window if MacArthur is one of the main speakers. 

4.  Also correct, I saw the video.  More proof he will change his views on a whim, probably because of 9/11.

5.  More ecumenical proof the general membership of GCC probably know nothing about and wouldn't believe you even if you told them.

6.  Because the current Pope's message is all about political, environmental issues that resonate with the hip culture and lacks any substance of preaching the Gospel to the lost, Johnson (one of the top 4 execs in the cult) is attempting to stereotype this as this message being meant for the Evangelicals who no longer believe in the Gospel and are open to saying only things that unite everybody without any conflicts in beliefs, since MacArthur's core teachings are that all who reject his teachings have a "cheap grace" that is unable to save, and believe they can be Christians without following Christ.  This is nothing but propaganda to try to use current world events to show their mind controlled followers that the world really is as bad as they preach and outside the cult all other Christians believe in a Gospel that is watered down to warm fuzzy stuff designed to not offend anyone.  This is what cult recovery experts call "Phobia Indoctrination."

7.  More of #5, and GCC's members probably wouldn't believe you even if you showed them proof.

8.  I can't say for sure about this one because I went to the faculty directory and couldn't find his name.  That's not to say he's not teaching there, as they sometimes don't list a teacher's name if he teaches under 5 classes or so. 

9.  Also looked up the other name, may have left or not teach enough to be listed.  The ecumenical connections I have no doubt about as it is their method of operations behind the scenes, just see watchmanwakes money trail flowchart.

10.  If someone on their payroll or affiliations visited the Vatican that is hypocrisy considering they make people shun others who even associate with Catholics.  Even those who do not share your view about the Pope being the antichrist should see this hypocrisy as a mockery to the martyrs you mentioned.  Also, MacArthur should label his denomination as such and not call it "reformed," "protestant," "non-denominational," "evangelical," etc.  It is good to see you are calling them out for this hypocrisy.  The behavior of this cult makes more sense when you view it in the light of its occult connections, copying of other theologies, and deception.  I highly recommend you look at some of the other threads and articles at this site and you will see more of why these things are perpetrated by this cult.  Others have tried to call MacArthur to repentance and have not been successful, and MacArthur will probably not take this protest seriously.  Also, be careful when dealing with members of this group, they can be very confrontational.

watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #12 
Al Mohler is John Macarthur's close friend and a keynote speaker at Macarthur's annual conference.  He is the founding fellow of the ERLC of the SBC which is an NGO of the UN.  Mohler's protege is Russell Moore, the current president of the ERLC.  Moore has joined with the Pope at the Vatican for an Interfaith Conference.

November 7 - Russell Moore, Rick Warren to Join ‘Pope Francis’ With Muslims, Buddhists for Interfaith Conference

waldens

User
Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #13 

Watchmanwakes,

You wrote:

Let me see if I understand correctly.  Macarthur's GTY partners with Fiel Ministry which put on a conference recently where S Lawson, who works at TMS, was the main speaker. 

@@ Dr. Steven Lawson, Director of D.Min program of TMS, was one of the mainspeakers together with amongst others Dr. Conrad Mbewe (also mainspeaker Strange Fire Conference 2013).

@@ Fiel Ministries hosted its 38th Conference in Brazil. In previous editions you can see speakers who also share conference platforms with Dr. John MacArthur.

http://www.ministeriofiel.com.br/arquivos/pastores//2014/

http://www.ministeriofiel.com.br/arquivos/pastores//2013/

http://www.joelbeeke.org/2012/10/fiel-conference-2012/

Upcoming conference in 2016 features amongst others Dr. Mark Dever of 9Marks.

http://www.ministeriofiel.com.br/pastores/2016/

(I am not sure whether it is the 32 or 39 edition, if it is 32 than 2015 was not 38 but 31)

 

Also scheduled to speak with Lawson at the conference was Dr. Schirrmacher, who not only heads 2 NGO's of the UN (including the WEA), but is also close partners with the Pope. 

@@ True, what I at least know is that as theological representative of the WEA Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher has been involved in substantial ecumenical work with the Vatican.

The photo’s show clearly how friendly the contacts are.

Here some more proof of the relation between both.

http://www.thomasschirrmacher.net/tag/pope/

http://www.thomasschirrmacher.net/tag/vatican/

@@ In this statement on missions worldwide Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher was also involved.

http://www.thefigtree.org/dec13/120113weawcccatholic.html

 

Schirrmacher is also the Rector of M Bucer Seminary, which had workshops at the Fiel conference and which provides church leadership course for Fiel Ministry.  The Director of M Bucer Brazil also spoke at the Fiel conference.  
@@ True, Dr. Franklin Ferreira is Director of Martin Bucer Seminary Brazil, whose Rektor worldwide of Martin Bucer Seminary is Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher.

@@ In this video (minutes 56-58) you can hear how highly Paul Washer esteems Dr. Franklin Ferreira http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/europe-blog/post/video-interview-ministry-in-france  (now in 2016 Paul Washer can know that his Rektor has been to the Vatican and Global Christian Forum).

@@ If I conclude from this that if Paul Washer is intellectually/ spiritually far beneath Dr. Franklin Ferreira, than Paul Washer must consider Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher even higher in his estimations as Schirrmacher is the academic Rektor of Ferreira, who visits the Vatican and Global Christian Forum, wherein is my reasoning wrong ?

@@ I also conclude that Paul Washer is a spiritual very dumb man to promote a Dr. whose Rektor visits the Vatican and Global Christian forum. Wherein am I wrong ?

 

This evidence connects all these "reformed" ministries to a major global ecumenist in Schirrmacher who wants to reunite with Rome.  This is evidence the big reformed ministries are seeking to reunite with Rome.  
@@ True, I personally consider this to be the reward of yearlong respecting of theological titles and churchpositions while the sheep who were nothing in their eyes were silenced.

@@ Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher can make the same sermons as Dr. John MacArthur, Paul Washer, Dr. John Piper, Dr. Mark Dever, Dr. Joel Beeke, Dr Sproul, Kevin de Young, Dr. Albert Mohler, Phll Johnson etc….. and at the same time sit in peace while celebrating mass with the pope (aka THE antichrist according to millions of Christian martyrs).

@@ The enigma is that Prof. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee (writer ‘John’s Revelation unveiled’) gave Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher in 1996 is doctorate in Ethics, Schirrmacher then translates the whole Westminster documents into German (including pope as THE antichrist), while in 2015 he sits at mass in the Vatican knowing that the one he called his ‘father doctor’ called the pope THE antichrist.

 

Why exactly did Schirrmacher back out of the conference?  Is he the Rector of M Bucer Seminary, or just the branch in Brazil?  
@@ What I know is for personal reasons. On his personal blog after the conference in Brazil his visit to the Vatican and Global Christian Forum in Albania appeared. It seems Dr. Steven Lawson of TMS was less important meeting than the pope and representatives of the Vatican Congregation for Christian unity.

@@ Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher is Rektor of Martin Bucer Seminary worldwide including Brazil.

http://www.bucer.de/das-seminar/mitarbeiter/ts.html


I can verify everything you said except one small point: I couldn't find where M Bucer provided the church leadership courses for Fiel.  

@@ That is easily proven.:-)

Please watch the video in this link you will see the main person in this Fiel video is Dr. Franklin Ferreira of Martin Bucer Seminary Brazil.

http://fielministries.com/ministries/fiel-leadership-course/

 

waldens

User
Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #14 
Watchmanwakes, Bjw,

http://www.bucer.de/ressource/details/bonner-querschnitte-152016-ausgabe-410.html

'Pontifical University: Schirrmacher calls all churches to unite in prayer, research and advocacy in face of exploding discrimination and persecution of Christians

IIRF well received by the US-Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom

[jpg](Bonn, 17.05.2016) On the occasion of the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious freedom, and an international consultation organized by the Center for Civil and Human Rights at the University of Notre Dame, theReligious Freedom Project at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University and the Community of Sant’Egidio, the director of the International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF) of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) lectured at the Pontifical University in the Vatican. He was accompanied by two colleagues of the IIRF, co-director Prof. Dr. Christof Sauer from Cape Town, and Prof. Dr. Thomas K. Johnson. Since the time of this conference, Dr. Johnson has been appointed as Religious Freedom Ambassador to the Vatican by the leadership of the WEA.'

On this website you can see Dr. Franklin Ferreira (praised by Paul Washer) and lower where the pictures of the teachers are, Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher. This although now Dr Franklin Ferreira knows his Rektor has been to the Vatican and Global Christian Forum.

watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #15 
Waldens,

I haven't found that you are wrong factually.  And you have shown that the reformed ministries are ecumenical and are reuniting with Rome.   Schirrmacher is using the persecuted church as a pretext to call all Christians and churches to unite.  These men don't care in the slightest if Christians are being persecuted for Jesus Christ.  Their goal is to find common ground in order to unite Christians, churches, and denominations. 
bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #16 
Sorry I haven't been keeping up lately, things have been pretty hectic for me this past week.

I will look at some of the links you posted.  I have never been Reformed, although I did go to a Dutch Reformed high school for three years prior to going to MacArthur's organization.  I had to take their theology courses while at their school, so I am somewhat familiar with it.  The reason I enrolled at TMC was that their recruiter advertised it as "non-denominational."  However, it is very much a denomination as you will notice from the way they network their churches if you check some of the other threads.

I too agree you did well with the research and how MacArthur and all of these Reformed denominations are going more ecumenical.  It does make a difference the more the truth gets out there.
waldens

User
Registered:
Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #17 

My last questions to you are these:

 In one of your articles on Calvinism there is a piece on Loyola (founder of the Jesuits (engine of the 600 years Inquisition against bible believing protestants)) .

http://watch.pair.com/reformation-2.html#calvin

1. If I in this day and age would be a Jesuit would I not rejoice in your articles on Calvin as being an archheretic and his followers heretics who should be given no attention but condemnation for their bad doctrine and bad lives ?

2. How is it, Watchmanwakes, that you exactly know how bad Calvin is, but when I ask you about the papal antichrist you deny that the pope of Rome is THE antichrist according to Scripture and history ?

3. To which church in history ,present and future do you belong exactly when the condemnation of the doctrines of Grace (=the True Gospel = true Calvinism according to Spurgeon) belongs to the Council of Trente  and the hatred against the protestants who (in my view TO THE MAN considered John Calvin a bright shining light that was given by the Lord Jesus Christ to His Church) to the Roman Catholic Church that made 600 years of Inquisition through Loyola and the Jesuits ?

4. Als Luther and Calvin finally recognized eachother as brothers in Christ, do you have the same problems with Luther just as the church of Rome had ? As you would excommunicate Calvin from the church you lead, would you also excommunicate Luther for his heretical doctrines of Sovereign Grace ?

 

watch-pray

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 67
Reply with quote  #18 
Waldens, I am the author of the profile of Calvin that you read. If you truly want to understand our objections to Calvin's theology, may I suggest you read the treatise of Lutheran theologian Aegidius Hunnius, The Judaizing Calvin, which proves from Calvin's writings that the Reformer habitually misapplied the Old Testament Messianic prophecies to David instead of Christ and undermined the fundamental doctrines of the New Testament. 

"In The Judaizing Calvin, Lutheran theologian Aegidius Hunnius (1550–1603) analyzes the writings of John Calvin, the chief teacher of the Reformed Church—and documents a persistent pattern of interpretation in Calvin which undermines the fundamental teachings of the New Testament concerning Christ Jesus. Hunnius contends that Calvin was a 'judaizing' theologian—one who favored a Rabbinic Jewish interpretation of Old Testament prophecies—and that Calvin's interpretations undermined the New Testament teachings concerning the Incarnation, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Hunnius provides the reader with a passionate and substantial refutation of Calvin's flawed interpretations, and upholds the apostolic understanding of the connection between Old Testament Messianic prophecy and the New Testament fulfillment of those prophecies."

The following is a catalog of Calvin's heretical interpretations of Scripture as documented by Hunnius, according to G. Sujin Pak's analysis of The Judaizing Calvin

Hunnius gives a lengthy exposition on Ps 2:7, “He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you,’” to demonstrate that this verse must be read for the Trinitarian teachings it contains. His initial problem with Calvin’s treatment of this verse is that Calvin first applies it literally to David and only secondarily to Christ—and this only via the type, by way of analogy and not by way of the literal sense. By applying this passage literally to David, argues Hunnius, Calvin renders unintelligible the apostles interpretation in Acts 13:33 and Heb 1:5 of its plain sense as a literal prophecy of Christ. Hunnius points out that these New Testament passages reveal that the apostles understand the whole of Psalm 2 as David’s prophecy of Christ’s passion. Thus, he declares that Calvin departs from not only the authoritative and authentic apostolic exegesis of Ps 2:7 but also the mind of David himself and the whole apostolic church in general. Yet, even more deplorable in Hunnius’s eyes is the fact that Calvin rejects the application of Ps 2:7 to the Trinitarian reading of Christ’s eternal generation by the Father. He berates Calvin for his “singular audacity” in applying this passage to David as a son of God, rather than to Christ as the only begotten Son of God. “Therefore,” asserts Hunnius, Calvin “is truly a Jew,” for he “plucks” and “tears this Scripture from the apostles.” 12.

Next, Hunnius turns to examine a set of biblical passages that the church fathers and apostles have traditionally interpreted concerning the deity of Christ, which include the interpretations of Ps 2:7, Ps 45:6-7, and Ps 68:18. The author of Hebrews uses both Ps 2:7 and Ps 45:6-7 to demonstrate the divinity of Christ. Thus, Heb 1:5, 6-9 reads (NRSV):

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? [Ps 2:7]… Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire” [Ps 104:4]. But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions” [Ps 45:6-7].

The apostles states that in these passages the Spirit undoubtedly speaks concerning the Son, but Calvin writes that the simple and natural sense of Ps 45:607 concerns Solomon and that it concerns Christ only via the type and not under the literal sense. Consequently, Hunnius accuses Calvin of judaizing: “For the Jews clamor in this same sense as Calvinwhen he says this to be the simple and natural sense!” 13.

Likewise, according to Hunnius, Calvin undermines the teachings of Christ’s deity present in Ps 68:18. The Apostle Paul relates this verse to Christ in Eph 4, by which he declares Christ to be the same as the Lord in this Psalm, demonstrating the deity of Christ. Hunnius bemoans that Calvin “crucifies the brilliant predictions of the Prophets.” Moreover, he accuses Calvin of arrogantly being his own teacher of Scripture by removing himself from the authority of apostolic exegesis. Even more to the point, Calvin has the audacity, says Hunnius, to criticize and correct the interpretation of the Apostle Paul when Calvin writes that “Paul subtly bends [deflectit]” Ps 68:18 toward Christ in Eph 4:8, implying that such a reading requires a “bending” of the passage away from its more natural sense. Again, he sees Calvin acquiescing to Jewish exegesis of this verse and undermining the scriptural foundations for Christ’s deity. 14.

Hunnius next turns to Ps 8:4-6, which he sees as a literal prophecy of Christ’s passion in accordance with the apostolic readings given of this text in Heb 2:6-8, I Cor 15:27, and Eph 1:22. Yet, instead of applying Ps 8:4-6 to Christ, Calvin “dares to twist” this passage and apply it to the excellence of humanity and to the dominion given to humanity over creation. Indeed, Calvin goes so far as to say that the excellence of humanity is such that it is “not far inferior to divine and heavenly glory.” This, says Hunnius, is not only contrary to the apostles reading concerning Christ’s humiliation but also contrary to the message of the Old Testament prophets themselves, who point not to the proximity of humanity’s condition to the Divine, but to their distance from it. 15. In so doing, Calvin “gnaws away as with a dog’s teeth the teaching of the Apostle Paul.” And yet again Calvin asserts himself as a teacher of Scripture above the authority of Paul when he accuses the apostle of “dragging” [trahit] the meaning of Ps 8;4 to apply it to Christ’s passion. 16. Thus, contends Hunnius, Calvin “plunders the plain sense” of these verses in the Psalms when he insists that the literal sense applies to the excellence of humanity and not to Christ: 

Will the judgment of Calvin stand better than that of the apostles? If so, then when other articles of the Christian faith wish to be founded upon the Prophets, will the Prophets be seen not to explain them…but rather to bend [deflectit] them toward the sense, of which others in the Prophets have said is the true sense? If concerning the Prophets and their [the apostles’] words are considered to be embellished through amplification…if, furthermore, they [the apostles] are seen not so much as interpreting the Prophets’ words but as accommodating them to some other thing through pious deflection

[deflexion]…Well, even the Jews would not suffer the opening of so many thousands of cracks! 17.

In this way, Hunnius charges Calvin with separating the apostles’ meaning from that of the prophets’ meaning and, thus, threatening the very unity of the Testaments that Calvin claims to uphold.

After arguing for the literal sense of Ps 8:4-6 as a literal prophecy of Christ’s passion, Hunnius turns to Calvin’s interpretation of Psalm 22, which Christian tradition, the apostles, and the Gospels have undisputedly read in reference to the crucifixion of Christ. He demonstrates the multiple parallels between the Gospels’ description of Christ’s suffering during the crucifixion and Psalm 22. Thus, that Calvin should explain this Psalm first in reference to David is an atrocity in Hunnius’s eyes. He views Calvin as a Jew, opposing Christ when he shatters these most basic prophecies and weakens the Christian interpretation of Psalm 22 before the Jews. Hunnius quotes Calvin’s statement that David speaks of himself through the use of metaphors to bewail his condition and exclaims in the margins beside this quote, “Away with your metaphors!” Again, he disparages Calvin’s “human invention” and blatant disregard for the interpretations of the evangelists and the apostles. Indeed, for him, Calvin is no better than a Jewish rabbi who devises ways to crucify Christ all over again. Finally, Hunnius quotes Calvin’s exegesis of the John 19 account of Christ’s crucifixion, in which Calvin writes that the evangelists inappropriately drag [trahit] Ps 22:18 to apply it to Christ, and thus they “neglect the figure and depart from the natural sense.” At this, Hunnius can hardly contain his fury when he exclaims that Calvin not only exalts himself again over the authority of the evangelists and the apostles but also acts as their censor. In effect, fumes Hunnius, Calvin has accused the evangelists, rather than the Jews, of bending [deflexione] the meaning of this Psalm to an unnatural sense. 18.

Next Hunnius turns to Psalm 16 as a literal prophecy of Christ’s resurrection, according to both the Apostle Peter (Acts 2:25-31) and the Apostle Paul (Acts 13:34-37). Indeed, both apostles explicitly write that Ps 16:10 cannot be applied to David, in that David died and experienced corruption, and must be a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection. Yet, Calvin proceeds to apply this passage to David nonetheless. 19. In response, Hunnius, using the terms Calvin employs in his criticisms of apostolic exegesis, sarcastically pronounces:

If Calvin was a servant of God, as his disciples proclaim of him, in no way could he have led others away from this one simple sense that the apostles set forth… You see with what tortuous bending [reflex] and serpentine circles this spirit of darkness twists [torqueat] itself so that this psalm is forced to be drawn away from the praise of Christ for which it is written. Therefore, he prefers to drag [trahere] the meaning to David in contradiction to Peter and Paul [who show] that David treated nothing of himself but entirely concerning Christ and his resurrection. 20.

Thus, Calvin weakens all the strong prophecies of David and departs from apostolic authority. Indeed, Hunnius points out that Calvin even notes the apostles’ readings of Ps 16:8-11 concerning Christ alone and exclaims, “If this is so, why does he apply it to the person of David?” Thus, if one follows Calvin, bellows Hunnius, the testimony of Psalm 16 can no longer be a refuge of Christian teaching; instead, it is filled with “Jewish treachery, wantonness, and tricks.” 21.

Finally, Hunnius turns to Ps 68:18 and Ps 8:6 as literal prophecies of Christ’s ascension, according to apostolic usage. He appeals to the Apostle Paul’s use of Ps 68:18 in Eph 4:7-10 concerning Christ’s ascension and condemns Calvin’s application of it to David. 22. Having already pointed out Calvin’s accusation that Paul bends the meaning of Ps 68:18 to apply it to Christ, he moves on to discuss Ps 8:6. The literal sense of this verse, in accordance with I Cor 16:25-27, Eph 1:20-22, and Heb 2:7-8, speaks of the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God and his dominion over all creatures, which occurs at Christ’s ascension. Hunnius admits that Calvin does indeed “sprinkle some mentioning of Christ” into his exegesis of Ps 8:6, but far “too sparingly.” More to the point, Calvin does not view this verse as prophecy. Hunnius is dissatisfied with the fact that Calvin will apply only the minor parts of Psalm 8 to Christ and instead narrates the whole of the Psalm as concerning the excellence of humanity. Thus, he concludes, “Attend to this, whoever you are, how much the most putrid glosses of Calvin depart from the minds of the holy apostles, who without doubt understand this Psalm more rightly and profoundly than a hundred Calvins and just as many Bezas or even more than all the foggy fuming of Pareus and all of these put together!” 23.

Hunnius not only is horrified at Calvin’s departure from apostolic exegesis and traditional Christian readings of these texts but also accuses Calvin of wicked and clever subterfuge. He views Calvin as “sprinkling” his interpretations with references to Christ, as if to avoid accusation, and then going on to explain these passages much more fully concerning David. Hunnius labels these as “pure tricks,” “deception,” and a “game of cheating the church.” Indeed, as a final proof of Calvin’s artifices, he turns to Calvin’s exegesis of Ps 110:1. Although Calvin does clearly state that Ps 110:4 (“You are a priest after the order of Melchizedek”) does apply to none other than Christ, Hunnius contends that he sprinkles Ps 110:1 “with the soot of Jewish corruptions,” for Calvin nonetheless applies this verse to David. The problem is that while the prior Christian exegetical tradition applies the whole of Psalm 110 to Christ, Calvin applies only a small portion of it. Thus, Hunnius believes that Calvin acts as a trickster when he claims to apply a Psalm to Christ, when in actuality he is picking and choosing what applies to Christ and what does not. 24.

Hunnius brings his charges against Calvin up another whole notch, though, when he points out that Ps 100:1 is Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees’ question about who is the Messiah and whose son he is. Hunnius scornfully writes that if Calvin had been standing beside the Pharisees, he would have answered that this verse could be understood concerning David, and indeed, in this way Calvin puts forth the Pharisees’ inanities. But more to the point, Jesus himself sets the proper interpretation of this verse as concerning himself, as seen in Matt 22:41-46, Mk 12:35-37, and Lk 20:41-44. In applying Ps 110:1 to David, Calvin dares even to go against Christ, the true Interpreter! 25.

See: http://watch.pair.com/hunnius-judaizing-calvin.pdf

bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #19 
I concur with everything watchpray said, and would like to add the Bible says you will know them "by their fruits."  The brutality shown by Calvin in Geneva with the murders he commited shows he was no servant of God.  The death count I have heard has been from 50 all the way to 200 people depending on which account you read, some killed simply for not accepting his doctrines, such as Michael Servitus and the four men Calvin beheaded for taking communion unworthily.  This is hardly the behavior of a man of God.  Jesus never condoned violence, and healed the man that Peter struck with the sword.
bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #20 
And here confirms the sad state of Christendom today...
We should be putting the Bible first and not a guru who teaches from the Bible.  I hold to no denomination's viewpoint, I read the works of the New Testament and follow the Spirit, not books or sermons written or doctrinal statements decided by a council.  Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his day as did His apostles.  The 2 Corinthians 11 passage watchmanwakes put as the signature verse at the top of the website confirms this, warning us to watch for false teachers in the end times.  How does it say we know them?  By their works, or fruits.

MacArthur's people also told me I was a heretic because MacArthur was sent by God and I was rejecting him.  If this sounds familiar it's because all cults use the same line, Watchtower says rejecting Russel and Rutherford means you're condemned, Mormons say rejecting Joseph Smith puts you in a lower heaven, Ellen G. White's followers say attending church Sundays is the mark of the beast, L. Ron Hubbard says you will be caught in a reincarnation circle without Dianetics auditing.  I do not put my faith in any man or teacher or council but in Christ alone and His atonement.  If for that I am being called a heretic in this post I am proud.
bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #21 
The scriptures say they contain everything we need "for life and Godliness."  I have followed what the Bible says for salvation, not some book written much later by fallible  men.  To say I am going to "lose my soul" for rejecting the works of authors who never even knew Jesus or the apostles is adding to the Gospel and denying the atoning sacrifice Jesus made for salvation, because that saves us, not the acceptance of Calvin, Knox, Bunyan, or any other author.  There are plenty of Christians who never heard of these people yet will be saved because they have obeyed the Bible and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.  The Bible is very clear on how to be saved, and it has nothing to do with what authors you accept or organizations you join.

I have no problem with people using books or commentaries in their studies, but to make accepting them a condition for salvation, that is going against everything taught by the apostle Paul as well as the rest of the New Testament.  My eternity does not hinge upon what I believe about John Calvin, so it is completely irrelevant to my acceptance of the Gospel.  Instead of relying on catechisms and commentaries, start from the beginning of the New Testament and read to the end, asking the Holy Spirit to guide you apart from what any man may think, because none of these authors can get you to Heaven, only Christ and what He has revealed through the Scriptures. 
watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #22 

1 Corinthians 3

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos, I am of Calvin; are ye not carnal?

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

John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.  

John Calvin has no role in our eternal life.   It means nothing to know John Calvin or his Institutes or his TULIP.  

 

watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #23 
Although "Waldens" provided information connecting John Macarthur with global ecumenists, his proclamation that the Pope is the Antichrist isn't supported by scripture and is disinformation.  For those interested, the following article provides information which identifies the Antichrist as a Jew from the Tribe of Dan: 

The Lost Tribe of Dan: The Early Jewish & Christian View of the Identity of the Antichrist



bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #24 
It's good to watch carefully for these beliefs no matter where you go because I know from experience these people are all over the globe trying to sneak these doctrines into churches.  MacArthur not only has conferences where people come from all over the world, but they even fly in to do chapel appearances at TMC.  For instance, I got to meet Don Whitney, author of the "Spiritual Disciplines" series of books while I was there, as well as Ray Comfort.  If you read what these authors teach and compare it to the fundamentals of lordship salvation you will see that is what they are teaching.  MacArthur has influenced these teachers to come on board the lordship camp.  As I mentioned earlier about the Phil Johnson interview that Waldens posted, they have built a straw man telling people how corrupt all other churches are except the lordship ones.  Their goal is to give you a phobia of any church except one of theirs.  See this:
https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/lordship-salvation
For each of the nine characteristics of lordship salvation MacArthur gives a characteristic of the "non-lordship" or "easy believism" movement.  You won't find one church that would agree with these so-called "easy believism" characteristics.  This is just to scare you from checking out their competition.  So, as you said, corporate worship rather than worshipping Christ, and it must be done through their church.
watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #25 
BJW,

I was thinking the same thing in reading Macarthur's "Lordship" vs "Easy-believism" characteristics.  What Macarthur has done is he's scared the GCC congregation into believing only he has the correct gospel.  Really this subject could take up a whole topic.  Look at the first characteristic listed:

"First, Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation."
https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/lordship-salvation

Like you said, very few churches actually teach what Macarthur is asserting.  All churches I've heard of teach that turning from sin will accompany saving faith. 

If repentance isn't a human work, then all those who believe in Jesus Christ can repent.  It doesn't matter at all what kind of church one is in, repentance follows belief in Christ.  When we believe in Jesus Christ we are buried with him and as he rose, we rise with a new heart and with a newness of spirit.  Faith in Jesus Christ creates the new "repentant" man and not an acceptance of some "Lordship Gospel." 
watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #26 
This is from John Macarthur's Distinctives of Lordship Salvation:

"Sixth, Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Rom. 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6). Surrender to Jesus’ lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ’s supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction."

John Macarthur says that Jesus demands unconditional surrender to Him and he cites the following verses to make his case.  I don't see where these verses say that Christ demands unconditional surrender. 

Romans 6

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Romans 10

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Then Macarthur tells us that a Christian is to either surrender unconditionally to Christ's lordship, or their heart is set against him.  There is no in-between.  Either a Christian is unconditionally surrendered or that Christian is at enmity with Christ according to Macarthur. 

Macarthur then states, "In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ’s supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction."

The bible's "easy-believism" gives eternal life to those who believe in Jesus Christ and are born again.  John Macarthur's "hard-to-believism" requires a person to follow a life-long surrender to Christ's "lordship" which really translates to a life-long surrender to John Macarthur and his ministers. 

As I have been told more than once by John Macarthur's pastors: "You are to obey our leadership even when we are wrong."   

bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #27 
This proves that from the introduction lordship salvation starts with lies, accusing all evangelicals of teaching heresies while hopscotching through the Bible pulling verses out of context to fit their belief that slavery is the only way to salvation.  No church in the Christian religion would say that you can become a Christian without recognizing Christ as Lord and His authority, and most Christian churches recognize faith and repentance are necessary.  I have yet to see who this "easy believism" is, he has accused teachers of it in the past through pulling quotes in their books out of context, but I think he has learned these teachers publish refutations when attacked. (Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Bob George, charismatics, etc.) 

People unaware this is a cult ask what "lordship salvation" is and they are told at first it just means you must accept Jesus Christ as Lord to be saved.  However, they redefine "accept" to mean a lifelong commitment of constantly increasing in works as you slave away to the ministry.  The definition for public consumption on the website is vague enough to not seem as demanding as it actually is once you are in.

Nouthetic counseling is a fruit of this doctrine.  If you are treated for depression by them you are told it is a sin issue, because your emotions don't matter and you are just being selfish.  You are just a cog in the wheel and need to keep contributing.  Not serving missions or witnessing?  You are again being selfish and need to put the needs of Christians who have been duped by non-lordship theology over your own, because their salvation means more than your personal needs.  The individual is completely devalued into the cult mindset.

The whole goal of this teaching is phobia indoctrination.  They start to believe all other Christians are weak and in need of restoring, every other church is teaching a false salvation, and that God only watches us from a distance looking to punish us for sins we don't confess.  Seeing students kneeling at the bottom of their bunk bed crying begging for forgiveness right before sleep was not an uncommon site in my apartment building.  It really is a miserable existence, and if most knew there was a better way they would take it, but they are deeply indoctrinated into the phobias this teaching instills.
watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #28 
Those indoctrinated in lordship salvation bondage remind me of a child who no matter how hard they try, can never please his unapproving parent.  No matter what they do it's not enough, it's not sufficient and the child always fears going into his always judgmental parent's disfavor.

Those indoctrinated by Macarthur have a false view of God.  They have believed the lie that God is a slave master and, as you said, "that slavery is the only way to salvation."  Also, they have a wrong view of their relationship with God in Christ.  Remember Jesus said that he no longer calls us servants because a servant doesn't know what his master is doing and he has told us all things and so we are his friends. 

Macarthur's followers believe they are God's chosen slaves.  But a slave doesn't abide in the house forever.  And Jesus Christ isn't returning for his slave.  Christians are God's children and Christ's bride.  Jesus Christ came so that all men may through him get to know his father's love. 

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." 

How evil and wicked to convince God's children they are slaves and that God is a slave-driver like Satan and his ministers (Macarthur).   
armylngst

User
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjw
MacArthur's new eschatology seems to be that Islam is nothing but a reverse of Christian eschatology, and that their Christ will be Christianity's antichrist, who will somehow temporarily convince Israel of a truce, get them and others in the world to take the mark of the beast (cashless society), and then anyone who repents (accepts lordship salvation) will be forgiven, even if they accepted the mark and followed the false Christ.  While anyone who knows the Bible knows this is incompatible with scripture, the sheeple at GCC can't get it because they have been convinced they follow "sola scriptura," in that as long as their elders are deriving doctrine from scripture alone it must be right.  They don't realize they are doing the same thing they accuse Catholics and charismatics of, that is accepting the interpretation of the Bible by their leaders over what the Bible actually says.  Thus, the need of being reminded of what they believe through the study bible and reference set.


First of all you say that the new eschatology seems to be something.  To me that means you haven't actually researched it, but you are going to tell us why it is wrong anyway.  Perhaps you should listen to his sermons on the matter, or read one of his books on this matter.  Then you can give a true answer on whether he is totally incorrect, or perhaps he is onto something.  Having the correct view of eschatology, but the incorrect view on who the major players are going to be, is not going to send anyone to hell.  Not being born again before death will.  

With this, could you do better to be truthful when you talk about what other people say, without the false witness?  John MacArthur did not say that you can receive the mark and worship the beast and be saved.  He said that he believes it may be possible that if you receive the mark, you can be saved.  After all if you didn't get the mark, you would probably die by the system in place, or starvation.  If all those without the mark died, who would be left to populate the millennial kingdom?  Worship of the beast did not come up, because that is not the question that was asked during question and answers.  He was asked if someone received the mark can they be saved.  The Bible does not say that people who receive the mark will be punished.  It says that everyone will be compelled to get the mark, and that it will be required in order to buy food/water/life essentials, and take part in financial matters.  Revelation only plainly says that those who have received the mark, and who have worshiped the beast have no hope.  

Now it is possible that this is incorrect, but we would have to wait until everything is fulfilled since the book of Revelation does not deal with this question directly.  (It also doesn't deal with other questions directly either.)

armylngst

User
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchmanwakes


This is taken directly from The Masters Seminary's doctrinal statement:

"We teach that, in the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity laid aside His right to the full prerogatives of coexistence with God, assumed the place of a Son, and took on an existence appropriate to a servant while never divesting Himself of His divine attributes (Philippians 2:5-8)."


What about the rest of the doctrinal statement?  Why just cut out this one part?  There are more places where they talk about Jesus the Son, well, as set against "A Son" here.

This is also taken directly from The Masters Seminary's doctrinal statement:

"We teach that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, possesses all the divine excellencies, and in these He is coequal, consubstantial, and coeternal with the Father (John 10:3014:9)."

"We teach that God the Father created according to His own will, through His Son, Jesus Christ, by whom all things continue in existence and in operation (John 1:3Colossians 1:15-17Hebrews 1:2)."

"We teach that in the incarnation (God becoming man) Christ surrendered only the prerogatives of deity but nothing of the divine essence, either in degree or kind."

"In His incarnation, the eternally existing second Person of the Trinity accepted all the essential characteristics of humanity and so became the God Man (Philippians 2:5-8Colossians 2:9). We teach that Jesus Christ represents humanity and deity in indivisible oneness (Micah 5:2John 5:2314:9-10Colossians 2:9)."

"We teach that our Lord Jesus Christ was virgin born (Isaiah 7:14Matthew 1:2325Luke 1:26-35); that He was God incarnate (John 1:114); and that the purpose of the incarnation was to reveal God, redeem men, and rule over God’s kingdom (Psalm 2:7-9Isaiah 9:6John 1:29Philippians 2:9-11Hebrews 7:25-261 Peter 1:18-19)."

"We teach that, in the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity laid aside His right to the full prerogatives of coexistence with God, assumed the place of a Son, and took on an existence appropriate to a servant while never divesting Himself of His divine attributes (Philippians 2:5-8)."

There does not seem to be anything wrong here.  Granted you might have liked it more if they said a bondservant instead of a son.  I may have issues if they had said "the Son".  If this doctrinal statement is not Modalist (which one can see it is not if one actually reads it), then what is wrong?  They even called Jesus the Son all the way back to the time of Creation and refer to the Father as Father all the way back as well..  I don't see anything wrong with the doctrinal statement, except they could have probably done a little better with the word selection.  The only thing that keeps it from falling apart is grammar.  They say "a Son" and not "the Son".  
watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #31 
Armylngst,

There is evidence John Macarthur is a Freemason, Druid, and Merovingian Jew.  There is also evidence the Antichrist will be a Merovingian Jew.  This places Macarthur in the family of the Antichrist.  Macarthur knows well that Islam's Mahdhi isn't the biblical Antichrist.  He is teaching this to deceive.  But why deceive?  You say:

"Having the correct view of eschatology, but the incorrect view on who the major players are going to be, is not going to send anyone to hell."

You couldn't be more wrong.  Allow me to copy a very insightful letter once sent to me about this topic.

"...in the audio Macarthur said [Note: it was implied] that the Mark of the Beast is the implant.  But that is not true, the Mark of the Beast is/will be the 6-pointed star, the Seal of Solomon, falsely called the Star of David. The microchip implant will be a counterfeit Mark of the beast to deceive the Laodicean Church which has missed the rapture. Why a counterfeit? 

"The conspirators [like Macarthur] have arranged for counterfeits (counterfeit Antichrist, False Prophet, Mark of the Beast) for the first half of the Tribulation in order to deceive the masses. (The propaganda for this set up has been ongoing and is generally accepted by Christians - Prince Charles/William, the Pope, [Islam's Mahdhi], microchip implant.) Starting at mid-Trib, the counterfeits will be eliminated and the real Antichrist, False Prophet, Mark of the Beast will be introduced as the Jewish Messiah, his prophet, and his mark, which is the 6-pointed star/Seal of Solomon. Since the fake Antichrist/False Prophet/Mark of the Beast were believed to be the real deal, the true Antichrist/False Prophet/Mark of the Beast will be accepted as the Messiah, his prophet and mark. (Rev. 14:1)

"Many in the Laodicean church will refuse to take the chip implant believing it is the Mark of the Beast, and they will starve to death, which saves the conspirators the expense and trouble of killing them. (Remember they have 2/3 of the world to annihilate before they're done.) So church leaders like Macarthur, who are giving their followers permission to take the Mark of the Beast and still be saved, are actually setting them up for the real Antichrist and real Mark of the Beast, which will be given during the Luciferic initiation at mid-Trib. (Rev. 13) These Laodicean church members will have taken the chip implant so they can survive, believing it is the Mark of the Beast, but that's ok, they can repent later and still be saved as J Mac and other false teachers have assured them. So these people will repent and take the real Mark of the Beast (6-pointed star/Seal of Solomon) during the Luciferic initiation, and will be told they have been sealed by Christ and are saved.

"I believe this is what Macarthur is doing, setting his followers up for the Luciferic initiation where they will take the Mark of the Beast/Lucifer during a wedding ritual in which they will take vows to Lucifer and do obeisance to him. And he has been getting them accustomed to these pagan rituals in a Christian setting." 

In claiming the Antichrist will be a Muslim, and in stating that Christians can take the Mark of the Beast and still get to Heaven, John Macarthur is promoting the counterfeits that will deceive the masses during tribulation and that will lead countless souls to Hell.  So there is a very good reason why Satan and his ministers, like Macarthur, are deceiving as to the identity of the Antichrist. 

 

 

 


watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #32 
Armylngst,

John Macarthur has denied that Jesus Christ was always the son of God.  He has taught that Jesus Christ only became the son of God at his incarnation.  Allow me to quote Macarthur directly:

"Over the years, theologians have debated about whether Christ is the Son of God in eternity. Christ is and always has been the second member of the Trinity but only became a Son in His incarnation. When you think of the word son you probably think of the submission, obedience, and honor shown to one's father. That is the sense in which Jesus is the Son. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus has eternally been the Son...From eternity He has been the second Person of the Trinity. He assumed the role of a Son in His incarnation. (L)

After teaching this aberrant doctrine for 25 years, Macarthur repented.  Here is Macarthur's quote:


"I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of ‘incarnational Sonship.’ Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father/Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ’s Sonship as a role He assumed at His incarnation." (L)

But did Macarthur repent?  This was taken today from TMS's doctrinal statement:

"We teach that, in the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity laid aside His right to the full prerogatives of coexistence with God, assumed the place of a Son, and took on an existence appropriate to a servant while never divesting Himself of His divine attributes (Philippians 2:5-8)."

This statement today is no different than the statements Macarthur made regarding this issue before his supposed repentance.  This is a statement given by Macarthur in 1987:

"Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus has eternally been the Son...He assumed the role of a Son in His incarnation" (Acting on the Good News—Romans 1, 1987, pp. 35-41). (L)

To quote Middletown Bible Church's critique of Macarthur's TMS's current doctrinal statement:

"
This statement implies that prior to the incarnation, Christ had not assumed the place of a Son. Also it implies that Christ did not assume the role of a Son until the incarnation. However, the Bible teaches that Sonship is not a role that Christ played, nor is it a place that He assumed. Sonship relates to Christ’s essential identity. He has always existed as the Son; He has forever been in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). Sonship is not something that He ever assumed." (L)

Macarthur has a history of denying Jesus Christ and when he states that Jesus Christ "assumed the place of a son" at his incarnation, Macarthur is denying Christ's essential eternal identity.  

In the quote above, Macarthur states the following:

"When you think of the word son you probably think of the submission, obedience, and honor shown to one's father. That is the sense in which Jesus is the Son."

This statement could be said of any Christian who has been born again and I see this statement as an attack on the deity of Jesus Christ as well.


 

 

 

bjw

User
Registered:
Posts: 174
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by armylngst


If all those without the mark died, who would be left to populate the millennial kingdom?  


Revelation 20:4King James Version (KJV)

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

watchmanwakes

User
Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by armylngst


The Bible does not say that people who receive the mark will be punished.  It says that everyone will be compelled to get the mark, and that it will be required in order to buy food/water/life essentials, and take part in financial matters.  Revelation only plainly says that those who have received the mark, and who have worshiped the beast have no hope.  


"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall 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 ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Rev 14:9-11

Scripture is clear that those who take the Mark will suffer eternal damnation.  And though many will take it, many will also heed the warnings given by God by his angels as stated in Rev 14:9-11.


 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

The Watchman Wakes In Vain
    Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the                 Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.  Psalm 127:1
email me

HomeAboutArticlesAudioVideoLettersDiscussion ForumEmail