@@Manofwar7I've heard John MacArthur say some suspect and straight wrong things about scripture, including his comments on the Mark of the Beast, and the Blood of Jesus, things that made me run away from him.
I don't know how y'all deal with the barrage of Christian nominalism (low view of Scripture) week after week. Very sobering for me to see all the misguided and blind spots in the comments. Thank you for your patience and labors brothers.
I actually enjoy the conversations most of the time. I do sometimes find myself getting frustrated but I think mostly the idea is that we're to have hope in God's word and his Spirit, and not just that others will come to agree with us but to believe by faith that God will bring us all to the truth. I've profited from internet discussions, have seen areas where I was arguing wrongly, been blessed by other's desire to know the truth, and learned how to better explain certain doctrines. I've been surprised at generally how civil the comments are, but yes, the low view of God's word can be the hardest thing to deal with. Charles
I don't think he's talking about losing now - it's in the tribulation. It's not about his own wealth. Also, he's probably in the same wealth bracket as everyone on that panel. I'm not a MacArthur fan at all, but I don't agree with the comments here.
He's not talking about the tribulation. In the full message (link in description) he starts out by saying, "Hey we tried. We honestly did. I think you did. I think I did. I mean I took interviews, I responded to questions, I think we tried to have an influence on our nation last year. " He's talking about influencing the culture right now. And while I think his money is only relevant in the context of what success means, I did have to laugh at your comment considering his net worth is at least 40 times greater than mine Charles
@@TheConqueringTruth you and I are still in the top 1% the point still stands. Wealth isn't determining who is winning and he's not "winning" more than you or me. If the context is within the last year, then yeah that's pretty poor exegesis of the outcome of their efforts. But biblically, the saints don't "win" in the worldly sense, that's why the martyrs around the throne are crying out to God "how long until you judge the wicked". We win eventually but not in this life.
I think it's a fair question. I do think that many people see protecting the position of someone they care for as inherently good. I think loyalty to people gets elevated over faithfulness to God's word. And I recognize how easy it is for me to do the same thing.
CONCERNING MACARTHUR'S RECENT REMARKS ON ESCHATOLOGY: I want to briefly summarize my assessment concerning John MacArthur's comments about pre-millennialism, post-millennialism and amillennialism, some of which was, sadly, unfortunate. First, I want to point out that I am - and always have been - a premillennialist from the time I studied all three viewpoints back in the early 1980s and following developments that have arisen since then. So I will restrict my comments to MacArthur's actual comments and not on the basic arguments discussed by the panel. I will do them one at a time so each may be considered, and as I find the time to write. 1. "WE DON'T WIN DOWN HERE. WE LOSE": From a premillennialist viewpoint, I believe MacArthur is pointing out that the preaching of the gospel by the church will NOT turn all - or even MOST - of humanity to the Kingdom of God given any period of time, regardless of how long the "millennium" is believed to last by those that hold the postmillennial or amillennial viewpoint. It has already lasted 2,000 years - and counting. Christ told his disciples "Go in at the strait gate, for broad is the gate and easy is the way that leads to destruction and many there be that go that way. But narrow (strait) is the gate and hard is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it." If words mean anything, Christ and the Bible, tells us, through this passage and others, that the majority of mankind will be lost - not saved - and that efforts by the church to win all - or even a majority - of the world to Christ before his return will never be a reality. The basic teaching of the "remnant," which is taught throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, also tells us that most of the human race will be lost - only a remnant will be saved. The church will not "Christianize" the world over any period of time. Actually, it will take the Second Coming of Christ - and the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom - to prevent the extermination of the newly-regathered nation of Israel in the "last days" and prevent efforts by Satan, the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet from destroying the elect as well as Israel. Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be left alive; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.” Of course there is much, much more and MacArthur did not explain further. I'll try next time to explain his reference to "garbage of the Prosperity Gospel" and its connection to Post-millennialism/Amillennialism as soon as I can. There is a connection, particularly concerning "Prosperity" teachings on "Dominion Theology" as well as the philosophy's "Seven Mountains" religious - political objectives.
Thank you! While this group is often very sound from what I have been able to discern, I think sometimes (and this seems to be true for most people not just them) when they don't agree with something they choose not to fully listen and focus in on something and take it out of context to discredit those who have a different view. I think I need to stop listening to them when it comes to eschatology because this is not the first time they have done this on this subject. As far as a great study on Revelation, Stephen Armstrong is my favorite. What about yours?
While MacArthur referenced eschatology in his comments, most of our criticism in this episode was about his handling of of several specific scripture passages. He was genuinely arguing that the church can't succeed in changing the culture because Christians will be persecuted and must deny themselves. There's a link to the full message in the video description and it starts out with him saying, "Hey we tried. We honestly did. I think you did. I think I did.I mean I took interviews, I responded to questions, I think we tried to have an influence on our nation last year." One of the points I was trying to make throughout the episode is that even if you hold to dispensationalism thinking about those verses in that way is dangerous. It was very humbling to record this episode because it shows how easy it is to let your viewpoint shape scripture rather than the other way around..
To understand these questions of eschatology and post/pre millennialism, post pre mid tribulation and dispensationalism, one has to see the Scriptures as a whole. For example, in Zech 13 it says that only 1/3 of Israel will be saved in the tribulation. Paul extensively deals with the question who is all of Israel? He addresses this in Romans 9 to 12. In a nutshell, all of Israel is spiritual Israel, we, the gentiles, who are believers, are woven into the vine. Not physical, biological descendents of Abraham is all of Israel, but all believers in JC, in the true messiah, that is all of Israel. Because nowhere, absolutely nowhere does Jesus ever say, that if you are a descendant of Abraham, that you are automatically saved, no matter what you do, what you say, what you believe, if you are an atheist or worse, that you are automatically saved if you are of the "chosen" peoples of descendants of Abraham! So we believers of the gentiles do not replace anyone, but we become a part of all of the Israel family. In Matt 24 JC explains the last days. At first He explains that thing will get worse and worse for the whole world, because of increasing natural disasters, which are like labour pains, giving birth. But then He says: those of you living in Judea, when you see the abomination of desolation, in the holy place, flee so abruptly so quickly, don't bother taking anything with you. So who lives in Judea at that time? Brits, Italians, Americans? No, it is people of the twelve tribes. And of all of the peoples of the twelve tribes just 1/3 will become believers in JC as their messiah. The church, those who already are believers before this happens, is already gone by then, raptured. this comes across in the parable of the thief in the night, where JC says He will come like a thief, unexpected, but before the great tribulation. It will be like Noah's and Lot's days, there will be unaware people, drinking, celebrating and then poof, destruction will come. But Noah and his family and Lot and his family, minus wife, were saved BEFORE the great destructions. Until then everybody, except Noah, was oblivious. Noah = the church, believers. It's so simple, yet people make it out to be so complicated. There is also the parable of the 12 virgins. The bridegroom came unexpectedly and a bit delayed, then only six where looking out for him and had oil in the lamps, the other six were left behind. then the door to the wedding party was closed and the six foolish virgins were left with those that were not invited. Simple. Children can understand it, just as JC said, it's so simple, we only need a childlike mind to understand. Thanks be to God.
PS: i like to add, JC talks about two different appearances He will make. One where He comes as a thief in the night, the unexpected delayed bridegroom, and another appearance He will make which will be so spectacular and visible from the east to the west, so all around the globe, like lightning. the first appearance is in the clouds at the rapture, saving His bride, the church from great destruction, invisible to the world, the second appearance is at the end of the seven year tribulation, when He comes as the triumphant King, to establish His thousand year Kingdom on Earth.
Brothers, geesh, all you have to do is look to Paul to understand. Paul didn't say that the apostles lives would be challenges, he said that to be a follow of Christ would be difficult. He didn't say financially or materialism. You could be afforded a very successful secular life and still suffer for your faith and be fighting the arrows of satan. I know there is a rational argument to be discussed from both sides and that no one can stand firmly on a complete on position but pretty much the second half of Revelation paints a picture that what's to come. Satan is not yet bound.
You realize that you are making our point for us, right? MacArthur is talking about whether Christianity can influence the culture, that's where his message starts: "Well, we tried..." (you can find a link to the full message in the video description) We're just trying to make sense of his argument. Because, we agree with you that you can be successful and be persecuted. We even think that God uses Christian suffering to impact the culture.
He means our victory and hope aren’t here. Our hope is in the future. Prosperity folks teach we can experience heave now. He was very clear. On persecution ask a Pakistani or Chinese Christian if they are being persecuted.
There are a couple points in the episode where we clearly say we think we know kind of what he means but the problem is he's using scripture that is fundamental to how you think about the Christian Life and he's tying it to eschatology and how the church influences the culture. If he hadn't done those things I would have disagreed with him but I wouldn't have even thought about making a response video. He's doing something that we're all very susceptible to, but it's dangerous when anyone does it because we end up twisting the meaning of scripture.
The limitation of words like win and lose when considering the multidimensional nature of eternal things brings confusion to discussion such as this. We cannot lose, when we consider that the Holy Spirit is the one who is fighting the battle. But when considering the measures set by the world, we can lose, and many do lose, maybe not John MacArthur the same way as some in North Africa or India, where homes of Christians are destroyed and pastors beaten and killed. They may not have suffered as extensively as Apostle Paul, but based on the light and opportunities, their measure of earthly loss" was not less. Yet, as the Apostle himself points out that in relative terms, the earlier gains (accumulated accolades etc..) now are losses, as the new gain is infinite in character, the gain of knowing Christ (Phil. 3:7-9). So in relative terms gains outweigh the losses infinitely, in which terms, we win. But in worldly terms of power and opportunities that make for worldly success, it will appear like Christians are losers. Yet, in the midst of confusion of terms, the victory that matters continues as "This Gospel of the Kingdom will go to the uttermost parts of the world" before the end comes - Spirit is winning the victory - it appears like we are losing, but not when this Kingdom of God is coming on earth ("within" (Luke 17:21) these new creations in Christ). So MacArthur was not right, but not wrong either..
We have a lot less issue with your description of it then we do with MacArthur’s. And that's kind of the point. In the full message, and there's a link in the description, MacArthur starts out by saying, "Hey we tried. We honestly did. I think you did. I think I did. I mean I took interviews, I responded to questions, I think we tried to have an influence on our nation last year. " So we're actually taking him very much in context. Especially when you consider that one of our Central points throughout the episode is that not only is he failing to be internally consistent his usage of those Bible verses is just a bad handling of scripture. Deny yourself does not inhibit you from impacting the culture. Being persecuted does not limit your ability to impact the culture, if anything it increases it. So like I said I'm a lot more comfortable with the way you described it. And while I'm definitely not saying that John MacArthur is completely and utterly wrong, in the context of influencing the world for Christ, I have a problem with saying what he said makes sense. Charles
That's how it went for me too I knew at one point I couldn't make dispensationalism work. Then our church went through Deuteronomy and seeing how God could have Solomon's Reign be glorious without the Holy Spirit having the same power in Ministry that he has in the New Testament help me realize that God had established means by which unsaved people could have their sin constrained sufficiently to have a glorious kingdom that was a picture of Christ Kingdom and that if that was true then there should be no barrier to him using those same means in a time when the Holy Spirit has greater power and a greater ministry. And most of my resistance to some form of an optimistic eschatology was either the idea that everyone had to get saved somehow which I knew was unbiblical or that unsaved people had to have their sin constrained which I didn't really think was possible. A closer study of the Old Testament really changed that for me.
Sure you are. You're just not a hyperdispensationalist. Dispensation is just a description of how God (Spirit) "dispenses" Himself out through time into the fallen physical realm. For example: Did you receive the anointing of the Holy Spirit (dispensed from Heaven) the same way Saul and David did through the anointing of oil by a prophet of God? How about how Lot came to salvation versus how Noah did? What about the differences of the interactions between God and Abraham, and God and the woman with the issue of blood?
@@rustynew9592 that's the first time someone explained dispensationalism without a massive timeline and diagrams usually stretching over numerous white boards
@rustynew9592 Sorry, I deleted my previous comment because I didn't read your comment carefully. If you think Lot was saved differently than Noah and that Noah was saved differently than New Testament saints, you are exactly what someone in the MacArthur camp would call a hyper-dispensationalist. I probably wouldn't call you that because I've read enough dispensational material to know that this was a common view among dispensationalists. But anyone who teaches that men are saved by something other than believing in the promises of God and by the sacrifice of Christ is teaching heresy. Maybe that's not what you meant by "how Lot came to salvation versus how Noah did," but historically that's the most common dispensational view and it's what ends up leading to all the charts and stuff because you end up with groups that can't be reconciled into Christ by his work on the cross (as Paul talks about in Ephesians 2)
If the perspective you are referring to is being inquisitive, then we'll take it. It just seemed like you were trying to insult someone and I thought you might want to be clear about what. I was asking specifically because MacArthur's position isn't a majority position in the United States, and our perspective is even more in the minority than his.
For what it's worth I didn't recognize your username from the other thread. And like I said in the other thread, I was wrong to assume you meant salvation was by different means in the Old Testament. Charles
No. We're disagreeing with him regarding his handling of a couple of passages of scripture. We respectfully disagree with him and think the issue in question is widespread and worth discussing.
I'm still trying to understand postmil. In the postmil view, when was the apostasy? I look forward to your future look at the Revelation study by Stephen Armstrong.
While we're not necessarily postmil, if you are referring to the falling away and revealing of the son of perdition in II Thessalonians 2, the view of the Westminster Confession and Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 has traditionally been that it is referring to the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church and in the case of the SLBC (and earlier versions of the Westminster) the office of the Pope.
This is paragraph 4 of chapter 26, "Of the Church" from the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 PARAGRAPH 4 The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner;7 neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.8 7 Col. 1v18; Matt. 28v18-20; Eph. 4:v11-12 8 2 Thess. 2v2-9
@@TheConqueringTruthas much as I love and appreciate the wisdom of our church forefathers, isn’t it dangerous to bind the bodies conscience in any confession to the office of the Pope being thee Antichrist? To me it seems like a blind spot in that they were basing their eschatology on current events as well, much like how premillennialists have done since the late 1700’s. I look at the RCC as one among many other false religions.
I think it's reasonable to ask if they were correct. Church bodies can take exception and collectively can edit the confessions as the Presbyterians have done in removing that phrase from later publications.
The problem is, that people have free will and most people won't accept the gospel. It will be like in Noah's and Lot's days, only a handful, a remnant, will be saved. Does that sound like winning in the worldly sense of the phrase? No. It is in the parable of the Sower as well, only a few will be on good soil. Maybe J MA made an unfortunate choice of words and the explanation is lacking clarity. All those who become believers are winners, in the sense that they are saved from death and eternal damnation, this doesn't mean that our lives here will be massively successful and victorious in spreading the gospel and that believers lives will be a bed of roses, all rainbows and puppy dogs. And the Bible says so. We have to pick up our cross to follow Him and that is not easy. Are we losers, no of course not; we are overcomers of this world, by His works and His love and we will have paradise in the next world, that is where our treasure lays. As the Son of the Great I Am said, narrow is the path and only a few will find it ! That is tough. Pick up your cross, that is tough talk. We are not going to save the whole world, because most of the world rejects JC, exactly as has been prophesied. That doesn't sound like winning by the sheer numbers, the amount of believers, but for those saved it is a win. The losers in this case are the majority of people who reject the good news, the minority are the winners. JMA didn't clarify this. And as we are going through these last days, things are getting tougher and more difficult, still. And the only things that will keep us save, is putting on the full armour and holding on to JC.
But when you look at history Man's Free Will has never posed a problem for God. In the reign of Solomon, the Queen of Sheba came and her breath was taken away from her because of the Beauty and the glory of his kingdom but everyone in Israel at that time wasn't saved, far from it, and the Holy Spirit hadn't come in power, and they were still looking forward to Christ and his sacrifice and the fullness of God's word being given to man. So that's one of the points that we're trying to make here is when we look in times past God was able to use his people to influence the world in major ways and we have more power today, more understanding, a greater knowledge of his word and then we want to turn around and say because we are sure of some future event that right now his people cannot influence the world. That completely flies in the face of what scripture teaches us about the power of His word.
@@TheConqueringTruth yes, that is the biblical account of the Queen of Sheba. A success story and through history and even today, there are huge success, sometimes miraculous stories of converting people by the tens of thousands in Asia, in Africa etc, even here there were revivals from time to time, like B. Graham, etc, then the enemy comes and sows weeds and thorns and the wind blows some away etc. Yet we are over 7 billion people and a few tens of thousands here and there, is a drop in the ocean. Even Sheba was just a small minority on the scale of the world. The Holy Spirit is very powerful, all powerful, but won't force anyone or manipulate anyone. Why would HE do that? That would be fake, that's self deceiving. And those tens of thousands of converts, then fall under the parable of the Sower anyway, like we do too. One could say it's a losing battle. Remember Lazarus and the rich man? the rich man in sheol, asking Lazarus and Abraham to send miracles or angels or Lazarus back from the dead to convince and save his brothers? The answer was No. Not that the Holy Spirit would not be able to do that, but it would not have convinced and lead the brothers to follow the right path in the long run ! The problem is with people's hearts, our hearts desires are foolish and deceitful ! That is what the Bible says. We are living in the last days too, things are not what they were 20, 30, 120 years ago. The labor pains are getting worse and worse. The days of Grace are ending and are coming to their final conclusion soon.
There's a reason why the Earth is able to sustain billions of people when there was regular starvation in many of these countries with much smaller populations before the coming of the Gospel and the bringing of order. I think you're probably assuming that we think there will be some future golden utopia where every person is saved while in reality we haven't made that claim once. We are literally living in the continued advancement of Christ’s Kingdom, in the nation that is the most powerful in the recorded history of the world in a land where at the time of the Protestant Reformation there were no Christians at all. It's calling all that losing, that boggles my mind.
@@TheConqueringTruth I'm not American, thanks be to God. But we are living in the last days and the advancement of the Kingdom is now slowing down and coming to an end as has been prophesied. That's the difference to what it used to be. JC said in Mat 24, that things will get harder and harder and worse and worse, Not better !! I'm not of any nationality in my mind, because I'm only God's child. The population of the US is about 380 million, now. World population is just over 8 billion now. The US is less than 5% of the World's population. The US is not feeding the world. The biggest wheat and fertiliser exporter in the World is Russia. The US is a colonial empire in decline. No nation has been a bigger warmonger and cause for misery in the world since WW2 than the US. Because of it's horrendous foreign policies, made by presidents and politicians who are more often than not, members of secret societies and are not following JC, but are luciferians. the last decent president the US had, who was not from a secret society was JFK and he got assassinated, because he wanted peace, not wars and for other things he said and did, that luciferians don't like. The US always only was an extension of the British Empire.This does not mean that there are no individual groups and people within the US that are a force for good, for JC. The US was established by decimating the indigenous peoples, by horrendous wars, and inhuman actions. It was conquered like Genghis Khan conquered, it was not settled by spreading love and peace and sharing the gospel, on the most part. I was born in a european nation lived there half of my life and the other half of my life I have lived in Britain, but I feel absolutely no pride for either of these nations. I love the people of both nations and I love the different landscapes of both, as God's beautiful creation, but I on the most part hate these days politicians of both nations because they follow the luciferian policies of wanting to rule and own the world, all headed by the US. God already owns everything, it's Satan's desire to own it, to rule over it all. I understand where JMA comes from and what he means. To understand JMA there needs to be a seperation of national pride and the only pride that is worth having and that is pride in JC and what HE did for us, everything else is of no value and perhaps even dangerous. As it is written in Proverbs: pride goes before a fall. So let's only boast in JC.
I think you completely misunderstood my point in referencing the United States. I was just talking about how it didn't exist 250 years ago (we're very aware of America’s serious sin problems and fully expect God's judgment and for that judgement to strengthen the worldwide church) . You also don't seem to understand how order came to the world I wasn't saying it was through the US I said it was through the spreading of the gospel and Christ's Kingdom. If you read through your comment you'll see that you're both caught up in current events and ignoring the history of the world at the same time. Also, who prophesied that the advancement of the Kingdom would slow down? If you're talking about prophecy in Christ's time that could have appeared to be being fulfilled many times since Christ's ascension. What makes you think you're right about now being the time? When you consider the fact that dispensationalism as a system of belief started after the French Revolution for the very reasons you're describing it's been wrong in its assumptions for 200 years.
You guys are doing what you’re accusing him of doing it’s obvious his point is post milinialism is incorrect and the lack of persecution is not the norm in the last2000 years
So, let's set postmillennialism aside, as we're not postmillennial. In his full message (link in description) Pastor MacArthur starts out by talking about how he and his church tried to influence the culture for Christ in the previous year. So that's the context. We're saying, in trying to explain the difficulty/impossibility of impacting the culture, he uses two verses: II Timothy 3:12 all those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution and Matthew 16 anyone who desires to follow after me must deny themselves. And we disagree vehemently with his use of those verses. Persecution does not decrease the impact of the church on the culture. Denying ourself does not either. If anything, they increase the effect of Christianity. That's why I said, it feels more like an emotional argument. I agree with you that he's rejecting postmillennialism. Great, down drag these two verses into it because people need to use scripture to think. And when we tie these verses up in emotional arguments we cause God's word to not be used for the purpose it was written. Whether you are dispensational/postmillennial/amillennial/whatever, we should think about these verses correctly. (And yes, we disagree with John MacArthur on eschatology and no I don't see that changing)
We’re not necessarily post mill (response) or we are not post mill (response) you’re inconsistency is concerning not really though and 29:08 yes we know exactly what he means And yes we do lose down here cancer disease sickness poverty persecution mistreatment for all but not specifically for each and post mill does not align and the prosperity gospel denies these not winning things and a million more in a sin cursed world and not having a positive eschatology statement is what’s got bees in your bonnet
One last thing and you’re doing your best to nick pick apart what he said when yes absolutely no doubt about it a biblical argument can be made defending his statement from a premill understanding of those often used verses we all know and once more (just be honest) his eschatology bothers y’all
@@douglasbutler4991 How can you say "(just be honest) his eschatology bothers y’all"? This episode is literally titled "John MacArthur is Wrong about Eschatology." We're not exactly trying to keep it a secret....
So when the disciples were brutally murdered, in many cases tortured, and lost their families and possessions because they lost their life for Christ’s sake, they won in this life? Got it. And Christ when He was wrongfully accused and was beaten and whipped and nailed to the cross, that is Him receiving the dominance and preeminence in this world that He was promised in the OT?You guys have clearly over emphasized John 16:33 and the ‘already’ aspects of eschatology. Remember to die is gain as we will truly have our final victory with the Lord later in the kingdom. Read the New Testament over again. You guys should stick to bowling.
Pastor MacArthur is talking about impacting the culture. In his message (link in description) the first thing he starts off with is, "Hey we tried. We honestly did. I think you did. I think I did. I mean I took interviews, I responded to questions, I think we tried to have an influence on our nation last year." So yes we think Christ's and the apostles deaths were how they impacted the world. I think denying yourself is how you impact the world. We're not postmillennials and we say as much in the episode but to the extent that Christianity can influence the culture, facing persecution and dying to yourself are two of the key ways it is accomplished. Can you help me understand what I'm missing?
Enduring great suffering and persecution and death is a witness to our victory. Remaining true to King Jesus and the word of truth under the most fierce persecution is our victory! Just read the book of Revelation! Hear the words of our Lord. I so do not agree with pre mill dispensationalism, historic, or classical pre millenialism or post millenialism, but i think i understand what McArthur is saying. However the phrase we loose down here is a poor choice of words that can be misleading and certainly misconstrued by those who hear. Jesus will and has built His ecclesia and that will never be defeated by Satan, false religions, false and apostate professed Christianity and godless humanism and its government tyrrany! But when the Son of Man returns will He find faith on the earth? That my friends is a call to self examination and gospel faithfulness. See Revelation chapters 2 and 3. There will be plenty of Christians when Our Lord returns but they will be scattered hither and yon among the vast amount of unsaved humanity including false Christian churches and apostate denominations. Does the SBC ring a bell? Oh the way that leads to life is a narrow path and " few" relatively speaking are on that straight and narrow path as Jesus so clearly taught in that section of the sermon on the mount. See vss 15-23 of chapter 7. In fact the entire sermon was meant to separate the wheat from the chaff, sheep from goats etc. A true faith from a deceptive and false faith. Even so come Lord Jesus.
While we said very explicitly in the episode that we could kind of get what he was saying, the problem (and what made it worth addressing) is that the way that he is handling scripture causes the listener to think wrongly about those passages. Denying yourself does not stand in the way of success or victory. It stands in the way of worldliness. And the context of his video if you listen to the full clip which is in the video description, MacArthur starts off by talking about how he and his church tried to influence the culture in the past year and why they shouldn't expect to be able to. His message pushes Christians to misunderstand how God uses both the Christian denial of self and the persecution of Christians to change the culture. That's been true all throughout history and the verses he quotes do not stand against it but are very much a part of the forward march of the kingdom of God.
I’m Postmillennial like the rest of you brothers and have been since 1994. With that said a majority of Postmills put the two tables of God’s law in reverse order. We can’t love our neighbors rightly unless we put God first and love him supremely. They teach it as a top down eschatology rather than from a bottom up eschatology.
I've never been a fan of the "two tables" language for that very reason, as I think it separates the law in people's minds in ways that are detrimental. Murder is wrong because as God tells Noah in Genesis 9, "For In the image of God made he man." So, is "Thou shalt not murder" more man-centered? Adultery is wrong because marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. And making graven images leads your neighbor astray and causes nations to fall into idolatry and ruin, so how is that purely "God-centered". When Jesus speaks of the greatest and second commandments, I think of them as being the focus of the entire law. The entire law is first and foremost about love of God and serving him and the second point of emphasis is to love our neighbor equally with how we show love to ourselves. Charles
Finally a chanel group that has perfect eschatology.... said no one ever!!!
Of course. But just because no is perfectly correct about everything does not mean that no one is correct about anything.
@@TheConqueringTruth point well taken. This is why I agree with JM. Peace.
@@Manofwar7I've heard John MacArthur say some suspect and straight wrong things about scripture, including his comments on the Mark of the Beast, and the Blood of Jesus, things that made me run away from him.
All four of you people need to read the Word. Genesis to Revelation. You’re putting words in his mouth.😢
We're really not.
I don't know how y'all deal with the barrage of Christian nominalism (low view of Scripture) week after week. Very sobering for me to see all the misguided and blind spots in the comments. Thank you for your patience and labors brothers.
I actually enjoy the conversations most of the time. I do sometimes find myself getting frustrated but I think mostly the idea is that we're to have hope in God's word and his Spirit, and not just that others will come to agree with us but to believe by faith that God will bring us all to the truth. I've profited from internet discussions, have seen areas where I was arguing wrongly, been blessed by other's desire to know the truth, and learned how to better explain certain doctrines.
I've been surprised at generally how civil the comments are, but yes, the low view of God's word can be the hardest thing to deal with.
Charles
Most of the comments are a result of pastor "worship." 😒
I don't think he's talking about losing now - it's in the tribulation. It's not about his own wealth. Also, he's probably in the same wealth bracket as everyone on that panel. I'm not a MacArthur fan at all, but I don't agree with the comments here.
He's not talking about the tribulation. In the full message (link in description) he starts out by saying, "Hey we tried. We honestly did. I think you did. I think I did. I mean I took interviews, I responded to questions, I think we tried to have an influence on our nation last year. " He's talking about influencing the culture right now.
And while I think his money is only relevant in the context of what success means, I did have to laugh at your comment considering his net worth is at least 40 times greater than mine
Charles
@@TheConqueringTruth you and I are still in the top 1% the point still stands. Wealth isn't determining who is winning and he's not "winning" more than you or me.
If the context is within the last year, then yeah that's pretty poor exegesis of the outcome of their efforts. But biblically, the saints don't "win" in the worldly sense, that's why the martyrs around the throne are crying out to God "how long until you judge the wicked". We win eventually but not in this life.
I wonder if everybody defending MacArthur in the comments are willing to defend Christ with such vigor.
I think it's a fair question. I do think that many people see protecting the position of someone they care for as inherently good. I think loyalty to people gets elevated over faithfulness to God's word. And I recognize how easy it is for me to do the same thing.
CONCERNING MACARTHUR'S RECENT REMARKS ON ESCHATOLOGY:
I want to briefly summarize my assessment concerning John MacArthur's comments about pre-millennialism, post-millennialism and amillennialism, some of which was, sadly, unfortunate. First, I want to point out that I am - and always have been - a premillennialist from the time I studied all three viewpoints back in the early 1980s and following developments that have arisen since then. So I will restrict my comments to MacArthur's actual comments and not on the basic arguments discussed by the panel. I will do them one at a time so each may be considered, and as I find the time to write.
1. "WE DON'T WIN DOWN HERE. WE LOSE": From a premillennialist viewpoint, I believe MacArthur is pointing out that the preaching of the gospel by the church will NOT turn all - or even MOST - of humanity to the Kingdom of God given any period of time, regardless of how long the "millennium" is believed to last by those that hold the postmillennial or amillennial viewpoint. It has already lasted 2,000 years - and counting. Christ told his disciples "Go in at the strait gate, for broad is the gate and easy is the way that leads to destruction and many there be that go that way. But narrow (strait) is the gate and hard is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it." If words mean anything, Christ and the Bible, tells us, through this passage and others, that the majority of mankind will be lost - not saved - and that efforts by the church to win all - or even a majority - of the world to Christ before his return will never be a reality. The basic teaching of the "remnant," which is taught throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, also tells us that most of the human race will be lost - only a remnant will be saved. The church will not "Christianize" the world over any period of time. Actually, it will take the Second Coming of Christ - and the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom - to prevent the extermination of the newly-regathered nation of Israel in the "last days" and prevent efforts by Satan, the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet from destroying the elect as well as Israel. Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be left alive; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.” Of course there is much, much more and MacArthur did not explain further. I'll try next time to explain his reference to "garbage of the Prosperity Gospel" and its connection to Post-millennialism/Amillennialism as soon as I can. There is a connection, particularly concerning "Prosperity" teachings on "Dominion Theology" as well as the philosophy's "Seven Mountains" religious - political objectives.
Thank you! While this group is often very sound from what I have been able to discern, I think sometimes (and this seems to be true for most people not just them) when they don't agree with something they choose not to fully listen and focus in on something and take it out of context to discredit those who have a different view. I think I need to stop listening to them when it comes to eschatology because this is not the first time they have done this on this subject.
As far as a great study on Revelation, Stephen Armstrong is my favorite. What about yours?
While MacArthur referenced eschatology in his comments, most of our criticism in this episode was about his handling of of several specific scripture passages. He was genuinely arguing that the church can't succeed in changing the culture because Christians will be persecuted and must deny themselves. There's a link to the full message in the video description and it starts out with him saying, "Hey we tried. We honestly did. I think you did. I think I did.I mean I took interviews, I responded to questions, I think we tried to have an influence on our nation last year."
One of the points I was trying to make throughout the episode is that even if you hold to dispensationalism thinking about those verses in that way is dangerous.
It was very humbling to record this episode because it shows how easy it is to let your viewpoint shape scripture rather than the other way around..
To understand these questions of eschatology and post/pre millennialism, post pre mid tribulation and dispensationalism, one has to see the Scriptures as a whole. For example, in Zech 13 it says that only 1/3 of Israel will be saved in the tribulation. Paul extensively deals with the question who is all of Israel? He addresses this in Romans 9 to 12. In a nutshell, all of Israel is spiritual Israel, we, the gentiles, who are believers, are woven into the vine. Not physical, biological descendents of Abraham is all of Israel, but all believers in JC, in the true messiah, that is all of Israel. Because nowhere, absolutely nowhere does Jesus ever say, that if you are a descendant of Abraham, that you are automatically saved, no matter what you do, what you say, what you believe, if you are an atheist or worse, that you are automatically saved if you are of the "chosen" peoples of descendants of Abraham! So we believers of the gentiles do not replace anyone, but we become a part of all of the Israel family. In Matt 24 JC explains the last days. At first He explains that thing will get worse and worse for the whole world, because of increasing natural disasters, which are like labour pains, giving birth. But then He says: those of you living in Judea, when you see the abomination of desolation, in the holy place, flee so abruptly so quickly, don't bother taking anything with you. So who lives in Judea at that time? Brits, Italians, Americans? No, it is people of the twelve tribes. And of all of the peoples of the twelve tribes just 1/3 will become believers in JC as their messiah. The church, those who already are believers before this happens, is already gone by then, raptured. this comes across in the parable of the thief in the night, where JC says He will come like a thief, unexpected, but before the great tribulation. It will be like Noah's and Lot's days, there will be unaware people, drinking, celebrating and then poof, destruction will come. But Noah and his family and Lot and his family, minus wife, were saved BEFORE the great destructions. Until then everybody, except Noah, was oblivious. Noah = the church, believers. It's so simple, yet people make it out to be so complicated. There is also the parable of the 12 virgins. The bridegroom came unexpectedly and a bit delayed, then only six where looking out for him and had oil in the lamps, the other six were left behind. then the door to the wedding party was closed and the six foolish virgins were left with those that were not invited. Simple. Children can understand it, just as JC said, it's so simple, we only need a childlike mind to understand. Thanks be to God.
PS: i like to add, JC talks about two different appearances He will make. One where He comes as a thief in the night, the unexpected delayed bridegroom, and another appearance He will make which will be so spectacular and visible from the east to the west, so all around the globe, like lightning. the first appearance is in the clouds at the rapture, saving His bride, the church from great destruction, invisible to the world, the second appearance is at the end of the seven year tribulation, when He comes as the triumphant King, to establish His thousand year Kingdom on Earth.
Brothers, geesh, all you have to do is look to Paul to understand. Paul didn't say that the apostles lives would be challenges, he said that to be a follow of Christ would be difficult. He didn't say financially or materialism. You could be afforded a very successful secular life and still suffer for your faith and be fighting the arrows of satan. I know there is a rational argument to be discussed from both sides and that no one can stand firmly on a complete on position but pretty much the second half of Revelation paints a picture that what's to come. Satan is not yet bound.
You realize that you are making our point for us, right? MacArthur is talking about whether Christianity can influence the culture, that's where his message starts: "Well, we tried..." (you can find a link to the full message in the video description)
We're just trying to make sense of his argument. Because, we agree with you that you can be successful and be persecuted. We even think that God uses Christian suffering to impact the culture.
The word 'gospel' translates to the good news, so... there's that🙏🏻
Very true.
He means our victory and hope aren’t here. Our hope is in the future. Prosperity folks teach we can experience heave now. He was very clear. On persecution ask a Pakistani or Chinese Christian if they are being persecuted.
There are a couple points in the episode where we clearly say we think we know kind of what he means but the problem is he's using scripture that is fundamental to how you think about the Christian Life and he's tying it to eschatology and how the church influences the culture. If he hadn't done those things I would have disagreed with him but I wouldn't have even thought about making a response video. He's doing something that we're all very susceptible to, but it's dangerous when anyone does it because we end up twisting the meaning of scripture.
The limitation of words like win and lose when considering the multidimensional nature of eternal things brings confusion to discussion such as this. We cannot lose, when we consider that the Holy Spirit is the one who is fighting the battle. But when considering the measures set by the world, we can lose, and many do lose, maybe not John MacArthur the same way as some in North Africa or India, where homes of Christians are destroyed and pastors beaten and killed. They may not have suffered as extensively as Apostle Paul, but based on the light and opportunities, their measure of earthly loss" was not less. Yet, as the Apostle himself points out that in relative terms, the earlier gains (accumulated accolades etc..) now are losses, as the new gain is infinite in character, the gain of knowing Christ (Phil. 3:7-9). So in relative terms gains outweigh the losses infinitely, in which terms, we win. But in worldly terms of power and opportunities that make for worldly success, it will appear like Christians are losers. Yet, in the midst of confusion of terms, the victory that matters continues as "This Gospel of the Kingdom will go to the uttermost parts of the world" before the end comes - Spirit is winning the victory - it appears like we are losing, but not when this Kingdom of God is coming on earth ("within" (Luke 17:21) these new creations in Christ). So MacArthur was not right, but not wrong either..
We have a lot less issue with your description of it then we do with MacArthur’s.
And that's kind of the point. In the full message, and there's a link in the description, MacArthur starts out by saying, "Hey we tried. We honestly did. I think you did. I think I did. I mean I took interviews, I responded to questions, I think we tried to have an influence on our nation last year. "
So we're actually taking him very much in context. Especially when you consider that one of our Central points throughout the episode is that not only is he failing to be internally consistent his usage of those Bible verses is just a bad handling of scripture.
Deny yourself does not inhibit you from impacting the culture. Being persecuted does not limit your ability to impact the culture, if anything it increases it.
So like I said I'm a lot more comfortable with the way you described it. And while I'm definitely not saying that John MacArthur is completely and utterly wrong, in the context of influencing the world for Christ, I have a problem with saying what he said makes sense.
Charles
I'm not quite sure of my eschatological position I just know I'm not dispensational
That's how it went for me too I knew at one point I couldn't make dispensationalism work. Then our church went through Deuteronomy and seeing how God could have Solomon's Reign be glorious without the Holy Spirit having the same power in Ministry that he has in the New Testament help me realize that God had established means by which unsaved people could have their sin constrained sufficiently to have a glorious kingdom that was a picture of Christ Kingdom and that if that was true then there should be no barrier to him using those same means in a time when the Holy Spirit has greater power and a greater ministry. And most of my resistance to some form of an optimistic eschatology was either the idea that everyone had to get saved somehow which I knew was unbiblical or that unsaved people had to have their sin constrained which I didn't really think was possible. A closer study of the Old Testament really changed that for me.
Sure you are. You're just not a hyperdispensationalist. Dispensation is just a description of how God (Spirit) "dispenses" Himself out through time into the fallen physical realm. For example: Did you receive the anointing of the Holy Spirit (dispensed from Heaven) the same way Saul and David did through the anointing of oil by a prophet of God? How about how Lot came to salvation versus how Noah did? What about the differences of the interactions between God and Abraham, and God and the woman with the issue of blood?
@@rustynew9592 that's the first time someone explained dispensationalism without a massive timeline and diagrams usually stretching over numerous white boards
@@TheConqueringTruth I know. Just adjustment to perspective to give good starting concepts to build upon.
@rustynew9592
Sorry, I deleted my previous comment because I didn't read your comment carefully. If you think Lot was saved differently than Noah and that Noah was saved differently than New Testament saints, you are exactly what someone in the MacArthur camp would call a hyper-dispensationalist. I probably wouldn't call you that because I've read enough dispensational material to know that this was a common view among dispensationalists. But anyone who teaches that men are saved by something other than believing in the promises of God and by the sacrifice of Christ is teaching heresy.
Maybe that's not what you meant by "how Lot came to salvation versus how Noah did," but historically that's the most common dispensational view and it's what ends up leading to all the charts and stuff because you end up with groups that can't be reconciled into Christ by his work on the cross (as Paul talks about in Ephesians 2)
Typical American perspectives.
Us or MacArthur? Or both?
@@TheConqueringTruth Appreciation for providing evidence to the point.
If the perspective you are referring to is being inquisitive, then we'll take it.
It just seemed like you were trying to insult someone and I thought you might want to be clear about what.
I was asking specifically because MacArthur's position isn't a majority position in the United States, and our perspective is even more in the minority than his.
@@TheConqueringTruth
and I'll repeat again for you:
"That's a great argument, and you have a great insight.
You are right"
For what it's worth I didn't recognize your username from the other thread.
And like I said in the other thread, I was wrong to assume you meant salvation was by different means in the Old Testament.
Charles
Shallow theology, to live is christ, to die is gain. We win in death whether it is first death to self but then to lose our broken flesh.
I AM PER__TRIBULATION. GOD'S WORD DOESN'T LIE..
Where does it say that?
How about reaching out to MacArthur and ask him instead of blathering on and on.
Do you have a particular question that you'd like to suggest we ask him?
Seriously? Aren't you asking for clarity?
No. We're disagreeing with him regarding his handling of a couple of passages of scripture.
We respectfully disagree with him and think the issue in question is widespread and worth discussing.
@@TheConqueringTruth But not worth engaging Dr. MacArthur about it.....
I'm still trying to understand postmil. In the postmil view, when was the apostasy? I look forward to your future look at the Revelation study by Stephen Armstrong.
While we're not necessarily postmil, if you are referring to the falling away and revealing of the son of perdition in II Thessalonians 2, the view of the Westminster Confession and Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 has traditionally been that it is referring to the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church and in the case of the SLBC (and earlier versions of the Westminster) the office of the Pope.
@@TheConqueringTruth oh okay, thank you!
This is paragraph 4 of chapter 26, "Of the Church" from the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689
PARAGRAPH 4
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner;7 neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.8
7 Col. 1v18; Matt. 28v18-20; Eph. 4:v11-12
8 2 Thess. 2v2-9
@@TheConqueringTruthas much as I love and appreciate the wisdom of our church forefathers, isn’t it dangerous to bind the bodies conscience in any confession to the office of the Pope being thee Antichrist? To me it seems like a blind spot in that they were basing their eschatology on current events as well, much like how premillennialists have done since the late 1700’s. I look at the RCC as one among many other false religions.
I think it's reasonable to ask if they were correct. Church bodies can take exception and collectively can edit the confessions as the Presbyterians have done in removing that phrase from later publications.
Welcome back Johnathan
Watching Reformed Calvinists melt over MacArhur dispensational theology is really funny...
We are glad to be able to be of some service to you. Though if this is your definition of "melt" then what do you call discussing things?
MacArthur is 100% correct. You guys better watch your step..
That's a really weird response.
"John MacArthur is correct because John MacArthur said it and I watch all his youtube videos."😄
The problem is, that people have free will and most people won't accept the gospel. It will be like in Noah's and Lot's days, only a handful, a remnant, will be saved. Does that sound like winning in the worldly sense of the phrase? No. It is in the parable of the Sower as well, only a few will be on good soil. Maybe J MA made an unfortunate choice of words and the explanation is lacking clarity. All those who become believers are winners, in the sense that they are saved from death and eternal damnation, this doesn't mean that our lives here will be massively successful and victorious in spreading the gospel and that believers lives will be a bed of roses, all rainbows and puppy dogs. And the Bible says so. We have to pick up our cross to follow Him and that is not easy. Are we losers, no of course not; we are overcomers of this world, by His works and His love and we will have paradise in the next world, that is where our treasure lays. As the Son of the Great I Am said, narrow is the path and only a few will find it ! That is tough. Pick up your cross, that is tough talk. We are not going to save the whole world, because most of the world rejects JC, exactly as has been prophesied. That doesn't sound like winning by the sheer numbers, the amount of believers, but for those saved it is a win. The losers in this case are the majority of people who reject the good news, the minority are the winners. JMA didn't clarify this. And as we are going through these last days, things are getting tougher and more difficult, still. And the only things that will keep us save, is putting on the full armour and holding on to JC.
But when you look at history Man's Free Will has never posed a problem for God. In the reign of Solomon, the Queen of Sheba came and her breath was taken away from her because of the Beauty and the glory of his kingdom but everyone in Israel at that time wasn't saved, far from it, and the Holy Spirit hadn't come in power, and they were still looking forward to Christ and his sacrifice and the fullness of God's word being given to man.
So that's one of the points that we're trying to make here is when we look in times past God was able to use his people to influence the world in major ways and we have more power today, more understanding, a greater knowledge of his word and then we want to turn around and say because we are sure of some future event that right now his people cannot influence the world. That completely flies in the face of what scripture teaches us about the power of His word.
@@TheConqueringTruth yes, that is the biblical account of the Queen of Sheba. A success story and through history and even today, there are huge success, sometimes miraculous stories of converting people by the tens of thousands in Asia, in Africa etc, even here there were revivals from time to time, like B. Graham, etc, then the enemy comes and sows weeds and thorns and the wind blows some away etc. Yet we are over 7 billion people and a few tens of thousands here and there, is a drop in the ocean. Even Sheba was just a small minority on the scale of the world. The Holy Spirit is very powerful, all powerful, but won't force anyone or manipulate anyone. Why would HE do that? That would be fake, that's self deceiving. And those tens of thousands of converts, then fall under the parable of the Sower anyway, like we do too. One could say it's a losing battle. Remember Lazarus and the rich man? the rich man in sheol, asking Lazarus and Abraham to send miracles or angels or Lazarus back from the dead to convince and save his brothers? The answer was No. Not that the Holy Spirit would not be able to do that, but it would not have convinced and lead the brothers to follow the right path in the long run ! The problem is with people's hearts, our hearts desires are foolish and deceitful ! That is what the Bible says. We are living in the last days too, things are not what they were 20, 30, 120 years ago. The labor pains are getting worse and worse. The days of Grace are ending and are coming to their final conclusion soon.
There's a reason why the Earth is able to sustain billions of people when there was regular starvation in many of these countries with much smaller populations before the coming of the Gospel and the bringing of order.
I think you're probably assuming that we think there will be some future golden utopia where every person is saved while in reality we haven't made that claim once. We are literally living in the continued advancement of Christ’s Kingdom, in the nation that is the most powerful in the recorded history of the world in a land where at the time of the Protestant Reformation there were no Christians at all.
It's calling all that losing, that boggles my mind.
@@TheConqueringTruth I'm not American, thanks be to God. But we are living in the last days and the advancement of the Kingdom is now slowing down and coming to an end as has been prophesied. That's the difference to what it used to be. JC said in Mat 24, that things will get harder and harder and worse and worse, Not better !! I'm not of any nationality in my mind, because I'm only God's child. The population of the US is about 380 million, now. World population is just over 8 billion now. The US is less than 5% of the World's population. The US is not feeding the world. The biggest wheat and fertiliser exporter in the World is Russia. The US is a colonial empire in decline. No nation has been a bigger warmonger and cause for misery in the world since WW2 than the US. Because of it's horrendous foreign policies, made by presidents and politicians who are more often than not, members of secret societies and are not following JC, but are luciferians. the last decent president the US had, who was not from a secret society was JFK and he got assassinated, because he wanted peace, not wars and for other things he said and did, that luciferians don't like. The US always only was an extension of the British Empire.This does not mean that there are no individual groups and people within the US that are a force for good, for JC. The US was established by decimating the indigenous peoples, by horrendous wars, and inhuman actions. It was conquered like Genghis Khan conquered, it was not settled by spreading love and peace and sharing the gospel, on the most part. I was born in a european nation lived there half of my life and the other half of my life I have lived in Britain, but I feel absolutely no pride for either of these nations. I love the people of both nations and I love the different landscapes of both, as God's beautiful creation, but I on the most part hate these days politicians of both nations because they follow the luciferian policies of wanting to rule and own the world, all headed by the US. God already owns everything, it's Satan's desire to own it, to rule over it all. I understand where JMA comes from and what he means. To understand JMA there needs to be a seperation of national pride and the only pride that is worth having and that is pride in JC and what HE did for us, everything else is of no value and perhaps even dangerous. As it is written in Proverbs: pride goes before a fall. So let's only boast in JC.
I think you completely misunderstood my point in referencing the United States. I was just talking about how it didn't exist 250 years ago (we're very aware of America’s serious sin problems and fully expect God's judgment and for that judgement to strengthen the worldwide church) . You also don't seem to understand how order came to the world I wasn't saying it was through the US I said it was through the spreading of the gospel and Christ's Kingdom. If you read through your comment you'll see that you're both caught up in current events and ignoring the history of the world at the same time.
Also, who prophesied that the advancement of the Kingdom would slow down? If you're talking about prophecy in Christ's time that could have appeared to be being fulfilled many times since Christ's ascension. What makes you think you're right about now being the time? When you consider the fact that dispensationalism as a system of belief started after the French Revolution for the very reasons you're describing it's been wrong in its assumptions for 200 years.
You guys are doing what you’re accusing him of doing it’s obvious his point is post milinialism is incorrect and the lack of persecution is not the norm in the last2000 years
So, let's set postmillennialism aside, as we're not postmillennial. In his full message (link in description) Pastor MacArthur starts out by talking about how he and his church tried to influence the culture for Christ in the previous year. So that's the context. We're saying, in trying to explain the difficulty/impossibility of impacting the culture, he uses two verses: II Timothy 3:12 all those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution and Matthew 16 anyone who desires to follow after me must deny themselves. And we disagree vehemently with his use of those verses. Persecution does not decrease the impact of the church on the culture. Denying ourself does not either. If anything, they increase the effect of Christianity. That's why I said, it feels more like an emotional argument. I agree with you that he's rejecting postmillennialism. Great, down drag these two verses into it because people need to use scripture to think. And when we tie these verses up in emotional arguments we cause God's word to not be used for the purpose it was written. Whether you are dispensational/postmillennial/amillennial/whatever, we should think about these verses correctly. (And yes, we disagree with John MacArthur on eschatology and no I don't see that changing)
We’re not necessarily post mill (response) or we are not post mill (response) you’re inconsistency is concerning not really though and 29:08 yes we know exactly what he means
And yes we do lose down here cancer disease sickness poverty persecution mistreatment for all but not specifically for each and post mill does not align and the prosperity gospel denies these not winning things and a million more in a sin cursed world and not having a positive eschatology statement is what’s got bees in your bonnet
There's more than one person that responds to comments here. Also, you're ignoring the argument MacArthur actually made.
One last thing and you’re doing your best to nick pick apart what he said when yes absolutely no doubt about it a biblical argument can be made defending his statement from a premill understanding of those often used verses we all know and once more (just be honest) his eschatology bothers y’all
@@douglasbutler4991 How can you say "(just be honest) his eschatology bothers y’all"? This episode is literally titled "John MacArthur is Wrong about Eschatology." We're not exactly trying to keep it a secret....
So when the disciples were brutally murdered, in many cases tortured, and lost their families and possessions because they lost their life for Christ’s sake, they won in this life? Got it. And Christ when He was wrongfully accused and was beaten and whipped and nailed to the cross, that is Him receiving the dominance and preeminence in this world that He was promised in the OT?You guys have clearly over emphasized John 16:33 and the ‘already’ aspects of eschatology. Remember to die is gain as we will truly have our final victory with the Lord later in the kingdom. Read the New Testament over again. You guys should stick to bowling.
Pastor MacArthur is talking about impacting the culture. In his message (link in description) the first thing he starts off with is, "Hey we tried. We honestly did. I think you did. I think I did. I mean I took interviews, I responded to questions, I think we tried to have an influence on our nation last year."
So yes we think Christ's and the apostles deaths were how they impacted the world.
I think denying yourself is how you impact the world.
We're not postmillennials and we say as much in the episode but to the extent that Christianity can influence the culture, facing persecution and dying to yourself are two of the key ways it is accomplished.
Can you help me understand what I'm missing?
Enduring great suffering and persecution and death is a witness to our victory. Remaining true to King Jesus and the word of truth under the most fierce persecution is our victory! Just read the book of Revelation! Hear the words of our Lord. I so do not agree with pre mill dispensationalism, historic, or classical pre millenialism or post millenialism, but i think i understand what McArthur is saying. However the phrase we loose down here is a poor choice of words that can be misleading and certainly misconstrued by those who hear. Jesus will and has built His ecclesia and that will never be defeated by Satan, false religions, false and apostate professed Christianity and godless humanism and its government tyrrany! But when the Son of Man returns will He find faith on the earth? That my friends is a call to self examination and gospel faithfulness. See Revelation chapters 2 and 3. There will be plenty of Christians when Our Lord returns but they will be scattered hither and yon among the vast amount of unsaved humanity including false Christian churches and apostate denominations. Does the SBC ring a bell? Oh the way that leads to life is a narrow path and " few" relatively speaking are on that straight and narrow path as Jesus so clearly taught in that section of the sermon on the mount. See vss 15-23 of chapter 7. In fact the entire sermon was meant to separate the wheat from the chaff, sheep from goats etc. A true faith from a deceptive and false faith. Even so come Lord Jesus.
While we said very explicitly in the episode that we could kind of get what he was saying, the problem (and what made it worth addressing) is that the way that he is handling scripture causes the listener to think wrongly about those passages. Denying yourself does not stand in the way of success or victory. It stands in the way of worldliness. And the context of his video if you listen to the full clip which is in the video description, MacArthur starts off by talking about how he and his church tried to influence the culture in the past year and why they shouldn't expect to be able to. His message pushes Christians to misunderstand how God uses both the Christian denial of self and the persecution of Christians to change the culture. That's been true all throughout history and the verses he quotes do not stand against it but are very much a part of the forward march of the kingdom of God.
I’m Postmillennial like the rest of you brothers and have been since 1994. With that said a majority of Postmills put the two tables of God’s law in reverse order. We can’t love our neighbors rightly unless we put God first and love him supremely. They teach it as a top down eschatology rather than from a bottom up eschatology.
I've never been a fan of the "two tables" language for that very reason, as I think it separates the law in people's minds in ways that are detrimental. Murder is wrong because as God tells Noah in Genesis 9, "For In the image of God made he man." So, is "Thou shalt not murder" more man-centered? Adultery is wrong because marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. And making graven images leads your neighbor astray and causes nations to fall into idolatry and ruin, so how is that purely "God-centered". When Jesus speaks of the greatest and second commandments, I think of them as being the focus of the entire law. The entire law is first and foremost about love of God and serving him and the second point of emphasis is to love our neighbor equally with how we show love to ourselves.
Charles
Charles I made a reply post but it didn’t show up. Anyways, I shared something with you on Messenger.
I don't see anything in the UA-cam "held comments" area, but I got the sermon link. I've started listening and will try to listen to it today
Hey guys---ditch your coffee cups and actually open your Bibles! MacArthur is a Biblicist.