-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
John MacArthur Lordship Salvation is Biblical. What are your thoughts?
- Thread starter YeshuaRedeemed
- Start date
-
- Tags
- salvation
Technical Note on watching the video on youtube:
I had some trouble skipping back to points in the the video on youtube, so I used a software tool to download it once and for all in order to be able to go to specific time points without any freezing. Others may wish to do the same, but its possible to watch the video straight through without any technical assistance. Its just that if you miss a phrase and want to skip back more than 10 seconds you could have some buffering problems. The commands to skip forward or back in youtube are keys j and l, but I recommend not pressing them too many times at once as it causes the video playback to freeze.
On to the video:
I spare no criticism either of the pastor himself (who seems pompous to me and almost incognizant of just how pompous he sounds) or of his soteriological stance which in a way is correct but is out of context in the way that he makes it about going to his church without leaving First I make notes at specific times. Then I conclude with a paragraph on my views of soteriology.
After expressing wonder at how God has blessed the church he has pastor'd for 40 years where he is preaching and starting at 6:29 he begins in the way of many, many preachers to compliment himself on how he is so brave to speak about a passage that isn't comforting. He's quite brave, and we can all see how difficult this was for him from the look of pain on his face, testifying to the strength of his commitment to his message. Personally I feel its a little much, but the audience having heard it so many times doesn't even notice. He admits though that bravery is merely the way that God has wired him, alluding to passages of how bravery is evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit. This supposedly is for our benefit and to assure us that who stands before us is indeed a man of God and by extension that we the audience have made a smart move by coming today to hear him speak. Moving forward he goes into the difficult problem that faces the church and which it pains him to speak about.
At minute 8:56 he mentions the difficult problem that some church people have that they make the decision for Christ but have "Manifested no evidence." It seems a little off topic but this presumably is why its important to have a strong spiritual leader in your church, someone that you can count upon. It is possible that such people will be confused about whether the sermon is about soteriology or about the greatness of the pastor, but that is part of the self deception which can cause people to believe they are saved without manifesting.
Having established a firm foundation we can move on to the red meat of his sermon.
9:43 "...so, I knew that no one who was a true believer could lose his salvation..and I wasn't sure how these people fit in." (speaking of those who make a decision for Christ but who have manifested no evidence) This leads into discussion of the problems with formulaic prayers about salvation (soteriology) in which some ministers, perhaps less qualified ministers, will teach that once you pray the prayer of faith with someone you then assure them that they have been saved. Its an interesting conundrum, because obviously there are some people who have prayed the prayer of faith yet do not manifest evidence of it. That is where he begins to build part of his argument about salvation and what it really requires.
12:20 A friend of his left the faith and plunged into a life of iniquity. This was a turning point in his thinking about salvation and whether a person could be saved merely through a prayer. It took losing a friend, but he gives other examples of other friends later. His friend years later became a Philosophy professor, then a rock concert promoter and finally ended up in jail. He notes that in those days there was a pervasive theology that said you could be saved merely through making the prayer of salvation. I agree, and that pervasive theology continues today among many ministers. A good example is the very popular and celebrated ministry of Billy Graham, another man who was rich in many ways as a result of his service to God but clearly not as sharp as this minister. It goes to show how pervasive a wrong doctrine can be or at least competing doctrines. They can be strongly accepted and persistent.
14:48 He went to seminary and made friends with the dean's son who eventually became a Buddhist.
15:56 He quotes 1 John 2:19 ."...they went out from us that it might be made manifest that they never were of us..." which he takes as evidence that these people were never truly converted. What he totally ignored here though was that John was talking about some antichrists -- people who opposed Christ, people causing divisions refusing to love and living in sin. These were some bad people not merely unconverted people, opposing the communion. They were so bad and confused other Christians to the point that it had to be demonstrated that they were not Christians, and this is the reason 1John gives that they were caused (by God) to leave the fellowship. My opinion is that it does not logically follow that all people who leave churches, today, are caused to leave for this reason every time. Also just look at all the scrappy people who never leave and who cause confusion by staying, and look at how insipid it is that the believers must endure such preaching and self aggrandizement on a weekly basis? Look how judgmental you can be and how you can refuse to fellowship simply through choosing a 'Fellowship' which won't fellowship with other fellowships? Can we, today, really presume that leaving a church is evidence of never having believed? I don't think so. That would require a particularly good church wouldn't it?
17:00 Talks about the possibility of churches full of people who are self deceived, practicing lawlessness. When he first starts with this church 40 years previous he preaches this like a howitzer and finds that there are many people not truly converted to Christ. His opinion is that people should not go to church unless they are living the right way. Ok. My opinion is that he is mistaken about it. Churches should be humble, and church leaders need to allow people to pretend to be believers instead of trying to finger who is and who isn't. Otherwise they use manipulation to force people to pretend and get the same result only worse. The unbelievers don't leave. God doesn't send them out to show they aren't believers. Its not the same situation that John1 talks about, but this preacher claims he was able to determine who was and who wasn't practicing.
18:05 "It is a weighty responsibility on many fronts to be a pastor..." Oh, please spare us and get back to the point before our ears fall off. Do you know how often pastors go on about this, because anyone who doesn't obviously sleeps through sermons. Its easy to be a pastor, and they get paid for it. There are training programs, all kinds of support, every conceivable advantage. I have to call balogney and question why every sermon is always at least 20% about why everyone needs the pastor to lead the church. This man who is so certain that he is teaching doctrine is nevertheless tainted by constant fear of losing his paycheck. Can we please have a sermon that isn't about pastor retention, one time? Just one time, please. We are only at minute 18, and already he has told us at least 5 times how important he is and how much we need him.
18:26 "under my ministry" He is not kidding, either. Can we please get back to soteriology?
I had some trouble skipping back to points in the the video on youtube, so I used a software tool to download it once and for all in order to be able to go to specific time points without any freezing. Others may wish to do the same, but its possible to watch the video straight through without any technical assistance. Its just that if you miss a phrase and want to skip back more than 10 seconds you could have some buffering problems. The commands to skip forward or back in youtube are keys j and l, but I recommend not pressing them too many times at once as it causes the video playback to freeze.
On to the video:
I spare no criticism either of the pastor himself (who seems pompous to me and almost incognizant of just how pompous he sounds) or of his soteriological stance which in a way is correct but is out of context in the way that he makes it about going to his church without leaving First I make notes at specific times. Then I conclude with a paragraph on my views of soteriology.
After expressing wonder at how God has blessed the church he has pastor'd for 40 years where he is preaching and starting at 6:29 he begins in the way of many, many preachers to compliment himself on how he is so brave to speak about a passage that isn't comforting. He's quite brave, and we can all see how difficult this was for him from the look of pain on his face, testifying to the strength of his commitment to his message. Personally I feel its a little much, but the audience having heard it so many times doesn't even notice. He admits though that bravery is merely the way that God has wired him, alluding to passages of how bravery is evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit. This supposedly is for our benefit and to assure us that who stands before us is indeed a man of God and by extension that we the audience have made a smart move by coming today to hear him speak. Moving forward he goes into the difficult problem that faces the church and which it pains him to speak about.
At minute 8:56 he mentions the difficult problem that some church people have that they make the decision for Christ but have "Manifested no evidence." It seems a little off topic but this presumably is why its important to have a strong spiritual leader in your church, someone that you can count upon. It is possible that such people will be confused about whether the sermon is about soteriology or about the greatness of the pastor, but that is part of the self deception which can cause people to believe they are saved without manifesting.
Having established a firm foundation we can move on to the red meat of his sermon.
9:43 "...so, I knew that no one who was a true believer could lose his salvation..and I wasn't sure how these people fit in." (speaking of those who make a decision for Christ but who have manifested no evidence) This leads into discussion of the problems with formulaic prayers about salvation (soteriology) in which some ministers, perhaps less qualified ministers, will teach that once you pray the prayer of faith with someone you then assure them that they have been saved. Its an interesting conundrum, because obviously there are some people who have prayed the prayer of faith yet do not manifest evidence of it. That is where he begins to build part of his argument about salvation and what it really requires.
12:20 A friend of his left the faith and plunged into a life of iniquity. This was a turning point in his thinking about salvation and whether a person could be saved merely through a prayer. It took losing a friend, but he gives other examples of other friends later. His friend years later became a Philosophy professor, then a rock concert promoter and finally ended up in jail. He notes that in those days there was a pervasive theology that said you could be saved merely through making the prayer of salvation. I agree, and that pervasive theology continues today among many ministers. A good example is the very popular and celebrated ministry of Billy Graham, another man who was rich in many ways as a result of his service to God but clearly not as sharp as this minister. It goes to show how pervasive a wrong doctrine can be or at least competing doctrines. They can be strongly accepted and persistent.
14:48 He went to seminary and made friends with the dean's son who eventually became a Buddhist.
15:56 He quotes 1 John 2:19 ."...they went out from us that it might be made manifest that they never were of us..." which he takes as evidence that these people were never truly converted. What he totally ignored here though was that John was talking about some antichrists -- people who opposed Christ, people causing divisions refusing to love and living in sin. These were some bad people not merely unconverted people, opposing the communion. They were so bad and confused other Christians to the point that it had to be demonstrated that they were not Christians, and this is the reason 1John gives that they were caused (by God) to leave the fellowship. My opinion is that it does not logically follow that all people who leave churches, today, are caused to leave for this reason every time. Also just look at all the scrappy people who never leave and who cause confusion by staying, and look at how insipid it is that the believers must endure such preaching and self aggrandizement on a weekly basis? Look how judgmental you can be and how you can refuse to fellowship simply through choosing a 'Fellowship' which won't fellowship with other fellowships? Can we, today, really presume that leaving a church is evidence of never having believed? I don't think so. That would require a particularly good church wouldn't it?
17:00 Talks about the possibility of churches full of people who are self deceived, practicing lawlessness. When he first starts with this church 40 years previous he preaches this like a howitzer and finds that there are many people not truly converted to Christ. His opinion is that people should not go to church unless they are living the right way. Ok. My opinion is that he is mistaken about it. Churches should be humble, and church leaders need to allow people to pretend to be believers instead of trying to finger who is and who isn't. Otherwise they use manipulation to force people to pretend and get the same result only worse. The unbelievers don't leave. God doesn't send them out to show they aren't believers. Its not the same situation that John1 talks about, but this preacher claims he was able to determine who was and who wasn't practicing.
18:05 "It is a weighty responsibility on many fronts to be a pastor..." Oh, please spare us and get back to the point before our ears fall off. Do you know how often pastors go on about this, because anyone who doesn't obviously sleeps through sermons. Its easy to be a pastor, and they get paid for it. There are training programs, all kinds of support, every conceivable advantage. I have to call balogney and question why every sermon is always at least 20% about why everyone needs the pastor to lead the church. This man who is so certain that he is teaching doctrine is nevertheless tainted by constant fear of losing his paycheck. Can we please have a sermon that isn't about pastor retention, one time? Just one time, please. We are only at minute 18, and already he has told us at least 5 times how important he is and how much we need him.
18:26 "under my ministry" He is not kidding, either. Can we please get back to soteriology?
Notice so far what can be summarized. There is a tiny bit of soteriology and a lot of assurances that if we listen to this man that he will get us there. We need him, and we need to hear what he says not just today but every week. Also we should feel guilty and question our salvation if we leave, because who else would want to leave except for an antichrist?
Soteriologically I agree that leaving fellowship is wrong. If you're not sharing communion with others, not caring for the poor, just living like a normal person then you aren't living the life. I don't agree that churches today count as fellowship in all cases, because they are just pulpits now. They are lecture halls to me. What then, is a person to do, and where can a person go for fellowship? Which minister never defames other ministers? Which church doesn't claim to be unusual and special compared to the other local ones? Soteriologically speaking, today, there is no argument for going to most churches but to all of them. The best thing you can do is avoid one church, because the churches are too involved in separating people. You attend a church, say, and it keeps you from visiting other churches. By mere fact that you attend regularly it divides you from everyone else; but if you want to visit other congregations you will be told you are 'Church hopping' and that you need to pick one and stay there, not because you really need to but because church now revolves around a paid lecturer. I think in order to remain in Christ you must bridge gaps while staying busy. Going regularly to one church is probably a mistake, because it is not staying in but out of fellowship. That's just how I see it. The churches don't really connect, and they tend to focus on how much you need the pastor. Therefore you can actually avoid fellowship through regular attendance at church.
I am still going through the video:
He begins speaking about the Sermon on the Mount (called the be-attitudes by some).
32:53 says God imputes his own righteousness to believers, so their own sins are not imputed to them. That how he says justification works. He also says "This is the gospel." For him the gospel has to do with this. "God takes his own righteousness and puts it on you!....on the cross God punishes Jesus for your sin..."
He's just saying what they pay him to say. If he said anything else he'd be out on his ear. His job is not to question but to enable, and that is why he is so far off on his analysis. I feel I have made clear how dependent he is on his reputation in this congregation and how often he appeals to his own importance. Everything he says is bound by that chain.
In reality my opinion is it makes no sense to say that sin can be taken from one person and put onto another. I think and suggest (without being paid and for free) that it makes no sense in Judaism, nor in the material world, nor to Jesus nor to his apostles. In fact this is true starting in Leviticus where if you read through the sacrifices you can find that there is no sacrifice for wrongs done purposely. They simply cannot be atoned for through sacrifice. The only thing that sacrifice accomplishes is atonement for unintentional wrongs, ever. Jesus own death is likened to a sacrifice -- a Jewish one not a pagan one. Similarly I suggest that it only atones for unintentional wrongs, thus bringing the gentiles into the house of Abraham if they repent.
He begins speaking about the Sermon on the Mount (called the be-attitudes by some).
32:53 says God imputes his own righteousness to believers, so their own sins are not imputed to them. That how he says justification works. He also says "This is the gospel." For him the gospel has to do with this. "God takes his own righteousness and puts it on you!....on the cross God punishes Jesus for your sin..."
He's just saying what they pay him to say. If he said anything else he'd be out on his ear. His job is not to question but to enable, and that is why he is so far off on his analysis. I feel I have made clear how dependent he is on his reputation in this congregation and how often he appeals to his own importance. Everything he says is bound by that chain.
In reality my opinion is it makes no sense to say that sin can be taken from one person and put onto another. I think and suggest (without being paid and for free) that it makes no sense in Judaism, nor in the material world, nor to Jesus nor to his apostles. In fact this is true starting in Leviticus where if you read through the sacrifices you can find that there is no sacrifice for wrongs done purposely. They simply cannot be atoned for through sacrifice. The only thing that sacrifice accomplishes is atonement for unintentional wrongs, ever. Jesus own death is likened to a sacrifice -- a Jewish one not a pagan one. Similarly I suggest that it only atones for unintentional wrongs, thus bringing the gentiles into the house of Abraham if they repent.
36:00 There are churches full of people going to hell, but they don't advertise it.
Lots of ministers do this. Its part of membership retention. "Be afraid of leaving, because its dangerous out there. You could be deceived and wind up going to hell! You need us." I suggest he has, once again, gotten away from the subject of soteriology and is again banging the drum for himself. Its standard warning against "Church hopping."
37:24 "...narrow gate. We understand clearly what that narrow gate means...Jesus....I am the door....I am the way...."
No I do not think he understands what the narrow gate means, not really. He does not comment on what 'Narrow gate' means in a Jewish context instead jumping to convenient cherry picked quotations. This is more membership retention, commonly woven into just about every sermon. Hear it enough times and it probably creates subliminal overload and bypasses conscious thought.
In a Jewish context I guess 'Narrow' is about humility, just like cutting the fat from a sacrifice is about humility and also circumcision. In Judaism (from what I understand) humility causes righteousness, while pride causes fighting. James says this much. The pagan world teaches that pride and fighting are good and symbolizes this with the phallus. The Jews reject this utterly, and conversion even require circumcision -- a total rejection of pride and violence. It seems the narrow way is about humility, full stop. I don't think Jesus hearers could have ever considered it to be about anything else. This pastor, however, is not free to consider it and must uphold a particular soteriological point of view. A scholar could consider other points of view but not him.
Lots of ministers do this. Its part of membership retention. "Be afraid of leaving, because its dangerous out there. You could be deceived and wind up going to hell! You need us." I suggest he has, once again, gotten away from the subject of soteriology and is again banging the drum for himself. Its standard warning against "Church hopping."
37:24 "...narrow gate. We understand clearly what that narrow gate means...Jesus....I am the door....I am the way...."
No I do not think he understands what the narrow gate means, not really. He does not comment on what 'Narrow gate' means in a Jewish context instead jumping to convenient cherry picked quotations. This is more membership retention, commonly woven into just about every sermon. Hear it enough times and it probably creates subliminal overload and bypasses conscious thought.
In a Jewish context I guess 'Narrow' is about humility, just like cutting the fat from a sacrifice is about humility and also circumcision. In Judaism (from what I understand) humility causes righteousness, while pride causes fighting. James says this much. The pagan world teaches that pride and fighting are good and symbolizes this with the phallus. The Jews reject this utterly, and conversion even require circumcision -- a total rejection of pride and violence. It seems the narrow way is about humility, full stop. I don't think Jesus hearers could have ever considered it to be about anything else. This pastor, however, is not free to consider it and must uphold a particular soteriological point of view. A scholar could consider other points of view but not him.
Last edited:
42:50 He starts talking here about how there is false Christianity and real Christianity and how its easy to find yourself in a situation where you are saying "Lord, Lord" and Jesus is saying "I never knew you," and he relates this to his ideas about the Narrow Path. He says becoming a *real Christian* is difficult for the following reasons:
46:25 Says to be saved you must be willing by the power of God to "reject the false messages and to give up everything."
In my opinion he is completely lost here. First of all he utterly fails to mention that the way to know who is a false prophet is by how they live. Instead he leads us to the conclusion that we must reject the wrong messages. This is, again, about membership retention. He is saying "Don't trust any preacher but me." I'm sorry but...just how much balogney can be in one sandwich, because this one is a Dagwood. He uses the congregations pure motives of willingness to self sacrifice, their commitment to do right; and he uses this to enslave them to himself. It is odious.
- False teachers "Hawking tickets to the broad road."
- False prophets dressed like sheep but who are actually wolves and whose lives are corrupt.
- So many decievers cause so much deception. So many false prophets, false preachers.
- The demands (of Jesus) are so high -- unlike in the Prosperity Gospel. He mentions the Pearl of Great Price parable.
46:25 Says to be saved you must be willing by the power of God to "reject the false messages and to give up everything."
In my opinion he is completely lost here. First of all he utterly fails to mention that the way to know who is a false prophet is by how they live. Instead he leads us to the conclusion that we must reject the wrong messages. This is, again, about membership retention. He is saying "Don't trust any preacher but me." I'm sorry but...just how much balogney can be in one sandwich, because this one is a Dagwood. He uses the congregations pure motives of willingness to self sacrifice, their commitment to do right; and he uses this to enslave them to himself. It is odious.
52:57 The sermon closing section. He urges everyone to live morally and says the evidence of true conversion is obedience, not profession.
He didn't tell everyone to drink poisoned Kool Aid, but he also reinforced his own position as pastor maybe 37 times. In the end his soteriology means going to his church or one approved of by him where there are similar lectures. He says salvation depends upon obedience and rejecting the wrong messages, that people who look religious on the outside are no guarantee of righteousness, and he completely forgets to say to judge preachers by their lives not by their words: thus allowing him to have a large church full of people who don't know him personally.
He didn't tell everyone to drink poisoned Kool Aid, but he also reinforced his own position as pastor maybe 37 times. In the end his soteriology means going to his church or one approved of by him where there are similar lectures. He says salvation depends upon obedience and rejecting the wrong messages, that people who look religious on the outside are no guarantee of righteousness, and he completely forgets to say to judge preachers by their lives not by their words: thus allowing him to have a large church full of people who don't know him personally.
According to jmac what should a christian do if he sins? What is the meaning of repentance? How to gain assurance of salvation?
According to jmac what should a christian do if he sins? What is the meaning of repentance? How to gain assurance of salvation?
All I did was look at the video. I am not him, and my post was a long time ago. I don't remember the video, now.