View Full Version : John MacArthur: POLYTHEIST?
Jason B
08-19-2010, 05:08 PM
I was listening to a John MacArthur audio earlier today and he made a statement to the effect that:
"The coucnil of the Trinity decided who would be redeemed before the creation of the world."
I like alot of MacArthur's stuff, though there are some areas of disagreement. And I personally don't think that trinitarians are going to hell simply because their trinitarians, anymore than oneness are going to hell because their oneness.
Those things said, when I often hear trinitarians adamently deny they worship "3 gods" and sling mud on oneness people by saying we are sladering them, offering strawman arguments, and the such like. They normally ATTEMPT to choose their words carefully so as not to use the words "seperate" and "beings" and the such like when debating/discussing with a oneness person, BUT when the arena is not a godhead debate they make statements such as this, which to my mind are completely irrational and foolish...IF you want to claim to be strictly monotheistic.
How can a trinitarina TRULY say the believe "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD" and at the same refer to the "one God" as a COUNCIL who decided TOGETHER who would be the elect (saved) before the creation?
PS-how does that work, before creation, mankind has not been created yet, does the "holy trinity" draw straws, a names out of hat, what? On what basis is one choosen to inherit eternal life, and the other eternal damnation?
Here's what I think of that doctrine :vomit
TGBTG
08-19-2010, 05:18 PM
First off, like you said, I don't believe Trinitarians are going to hell (because of 1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God)
However, on paper Trinity is 1 God, BUT IN PRACTICE, it is 3 Gods (I know they use persons...)
Take for instance, when a pastor preaches on:
Why we worship the Father, Why we worship the Son, and Why we worship the Holy Spirit? Any non-religious person would definitely think of 3 Gods, IMO
TGBTG
08-19-2010, 05:23 PM
Does anyone know how the positions in the trinity were determined? How do they know that the Father is the 1st person, Son is 2nd person, and Holy Spirit is 3rd person?
As in could the Son be the 1st person, the Holy Spirit the 2nd person, and the Father the 3rd person (Hope you get my drift...)
Links or Scriptures (preferably scriptures). Thanks
Does anyone know how the positions in the trinity were determined? How do they know that the Father is the 1st person, Son is 2nd person, and Holy Spirit is 3rd person?
As in could the Son be the 1st person, the Holy Spirit the 2nd person, and the Father the 3rd person (Hope you get my drift...)
Links or Scriptures (preferably scriptures). Thanks
I recommend a book that will help you in your quest...WHEN JESUS BECAME GOD by Richard E Rubeinstein
Praxeas
08-19-2010, 07:23 PM
As has been stated, Trinitarianism on paper is Monotheistic. However when Trinitarians try to argue the Trinity or rather against other theologies like Oneness, they often end up describing the persons as though they were separate beings
A day or 2 ago, I was driving home listening to mr. bible answer man H.H. on the radio. He was making the point of how it was actually God the Father that crucified God the Son, (not so much the jews that put him on the cross, or the romans that drove the nails...)
I dont recall him ever referring to Jesus as the Son of God during that broadcast, but always God the Son.
"The Bible says that in the beginning there was only God. He has always been. God has no beginning and no ending. There were no sun, no stars, no planets, no Earth --and no people.There was just God But He was not alone, because God is really three persons --God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three together are God."
I Believe in Jesus
Leading Your Child to Christ
by John MacArthur copyright 1999
The way that Dr. MacArthur says that --that God was "not alone, because God is really three persons" sounds almost tri-theistic, doesn't it?
seekerman
08-19-2010, 10:48 PM
"The Bible says that in the beginning there was only God. He has always been. God has no beginning and no ending. There were no sun, no stars, no planets, no Earth --and no people.There was just God But He was not alone, because God is really three persons --God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three together are God."
I Believe in Jesus
Leading Your Child to Christ
by John MacArthur copyright 1999
The way that Dr. MacArthur says that --that God was "not alone, because God is really three persons" sounds almost tri-theistic, doesn't it?
Me, myself and I?
Jason B
08-19-2010, 10:55 PM
"The Bible says that in the beginning there was only God. He has always been. God has no beginning and no ending. There were no sun, no stars, no planets, no Earth --and no people.There was just God But He was not alone, because God is really three persons --God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three together are God."
I Believe in Jesus
Leading Your Child to Christ
by John MacArthur copyright 1999
The way that Dr. MacArthur says that --that God was "not alone, because God is really three persons" sounds almost tri-theistic, doesn't it?
Absolutely. (Again, I'm not bashing him, he's one of my favorite preachers and authors)
But language and terminology like that would be a HUGE stumbling block to me if I were a Jew considering Christianity. I honestly do not think thats how Paul or Peter or any early Jewish person viewed the godhead.
I think it is the product of gentile philosphy and ignorance. I truly (without any arrogance intended) believe that the oneness doctrine maintains a much more primitive and biblical idea of God.
I'm also honest enough to say, no one has God and the incarnation figured out to a science, and I don't believe you have to be a theologian or Christalogian (aka Godhead Ninja) to be saved. I believe you can be saved with bad doctrine, so long as you live a truly repented life of faith in the Jesus Christ, trusting in his atoning death for sin and subsequent ressurection.
But I get really sick and tired and beaten down with this trinitarian drivel that isn't found in scripture. This kind of stuff isn't scriptural based, its seminary based. If the Bible wasn't so adament about there only being one God, some of these folks would have absolutely no problem saying there were "three gods" though they deny. Didn't Flavius Justin (Martyr) use the language "two gods" when referring to the Father and the Logos?
Anyway, I know that not all trinitarians believe the trinity the same way, some have a very oneness view of God, while using very trinitarian terminology. Also some oneness people have some wacky ideas too, so thats a sword that cuts both ways.
My point in this thread was that even the most respected trinitarian ministers definetely use language that validates some of the claims which oneness people have laid to their charge, and they have cried "foul!" all the while they speak of a supposed (one) God as a "council" and "NOT alone".
I guess if you have enough of a majority you can say anything. Kind of like wal mart saying they have the lowest prices over and over, when in fact they don't. (had to throw that reference in from my secular point of view)
staysharp
08-20-2010, 06:04 AM
I was listening to a John MacArthur audio earlier today and he made a statement to the effect that:
"The coucnil of the Trinity decided who would be redeemed before the creation of the world."
I like alot of MacArthur's stuff, though there are some areas of disagreement. And I personally don't think that trinitarians are going to hell simply because their trinitarians, anymore than oneness are going to hell because their oneness.
Those things said, when I often hear trinitarians adamently deny they worship "3 gods" and sling mud on oneness people by saying we are sladering them, offering strawman arguments, and the such like. They normally ATTEMPT to choose their words carefully so as not to use the words "seperate" and "beings" and the such like when debating/discussing with a oneness person, BUT when the arena is not a godhead debate they make statements such as this, which to my mind are completely irrational and foolish...IF you want to claim to be strictly monotheistic.
How can a trinitarina TRULY say the believe "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD" and at the same refer to the "one God" as a COUNCIL who decided TOGETHER who would be the elect (saved) before the creation?
PS-how does that work, before creation, mankind has not been created yet, does the "holy trinity" draw straws, a names out of hat, what? On what basis is one choosen to inherit eternal life, and the other eternal damnation?
Here's what I think of that doctrine :vomit
John is a died and true reformed hyper Calvanist. His theology is mixed up IMO and he does not understand God's love. Trinitarians do not believe in 3 gods, however John is a legalist at heart which far surpasses any damage trinitarianism would ever do.
Jermyn Davidson
08-20-2010, 11:02 AM
John is a died and true reformed hyper Calvanist. His theology is mixed up IMO and he does not understand God's love. Trinitarians do not believe in 3 gods, however John is a legalist at heart which far surpasses any damage trinitarianism would ever do.
MacArthur is a legalist?
I think you are out of your mind.
Then again, some would say Paul Washer is a legalist too.
Neither one of these guys are legalistic in the sermons I have heard them preach.
Praxeas
08-20-2010, 12:17 PM
John is a died and true reformed hyper Calvanist. His theology is mixed up IMO and he does not understand God's love. Trinitarians do not believe in 3 gods, however John is a legalist at heart which far surpasses any damage trinitarianism would ever do.
Can you qualify this statement? Id like evidence that a hypercalvanist is a legalist...isn't that an oxymoron?
He's a hyper Calvanist yet John is a legalist?
What does either have to do with his view of the Trinity?
Praxeas
08-20-2010, 12:18 PM
MacArthur is a legalist?
I think you are out of your mind.
Then again, some would say Paul Washer is a legalist too.
Neither one of these guys are legalistic in the sermons I have heard them preach.
No no. Mac is a hyper Calvanist...no wait...he's a legalist...no wait....oh wait...he's a trinitarian...no he must not be a Trinitarian because John is a legalistic hyper Calvanist????? :ursofunny
mfblume
08-20-2010, 01:26 PM
How can a trinitarina ...
I know it is a typo and we all make them, but that is cool little word. Trinitarina. lol
TGBTG
08-20-2010, 01:42 PM
I know it is a typo and we all make them, but that is cool little word. Trinitarina. lol
You made a typo yourself...insert "a" between is and cool..lol:bliss
mfblume
08-20-2010, 01:52 PM
You made a typo yourself...insert "a" between is and cool..lol:bliss
Yes, I did. :lol
I thought about a Trinitarina being a female trinitarian.
I know it is a typo and we all make them, but that is cool little word. Trinitarina. lol
Isn't a Trinitarina an Italian lady who believes in the trinity?
Orthodoxy
08-20-2010, 02:03 PM
John is a died and true reformed hyper Calvanist. His theology is mixed up IMO and he does not understand God's love. Trinitarians do not believe in 3 gods, however John is a legalist at heart which far surpasses any damage trinitarianism would ever do.
I normally don't comment much nowadays, but this is slander. MacArthur is NOT a hyper-Calvinist. A Calvinist, yes....But a hyper-Calvinist, absolutely not.
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
(Cited from this link: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm )
None of these definitions describe MacArthur even remotely.
And what do you mean by "legalist"?
***Edit: I didn't even realize until just now that the article cited above was written by Phil Johnson, director of Grace to You, John Mac's teaching ministry. Johnson is obviously against hyper-Calvinism. ***
mfblume
08-20-2010, 02:06 PM
Isn't a Trinitarina an Italian lady who believes in the trinity?
:lol Yes, Italian or Spanish, anyway.
Jermyn Davidson
08-20-2010, 02:09 PM
No no. Mac is a hyper Calvanist...no wait...he's a legalist...no wait....oh wait...he's a trinitarian...no he must not be a Trinitarian because John is a legalistic hyper Calvanist????? :ursofunny
:)
Michael The Disciple
08-20-2010, 02:49 PM
Macarthurs view is that of tri theism. Three Gods. He and the others try not to make it so. Yet they cant help it. Its the nature of the doctrine. If they were Oneness they would not be attacking us.
staysharp
08-20-2010, 04:24 PM
MacArthur is a legalist?
I think you are out of your mind.
Then again, some would say Paul Washer is a legalist too.
Neither one of these guys are legalistic in the sermons I have heard them preach.
Not interested in getting into a debate, but suffice to say this; the denial of free will is legalism.
The doctrines of total depravity, irresistible grace and predestination deny one has any part in their salvific process, but rather God's justice rules, rather than his love. God to them is not "all" loving, but only to those whom he chooses to love. The scripture they use is "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated"...which if u study this objectively, God's talking about the nation of Edomites which did much harm to Israel and also that word hate means "love less" in the Hebrew idiom.
God is not so sovereign that he violates his own nature. He is all loving. He died for all...
When defining the gospel, John believes in limited atonement. That Christ's death was not for "all" but only the elect. This doctrine denies grace for all, but rather only to the elect and since no one knows who they are, we are to preach the gospel and the elect will respond. Spurgeon said that if the elect had a big "E" on their backs, we would know who they are and wouldn't need to preach.
He also believes in the perseverance of the saints which does not truly guarantee salvation until death and then one cannot be sure you are part of the elect. Many puritan calvanists died fearful of their salvation not knowing if they were part of the elect.
If one studies the roots of calvanism, you will understand my statement concerning legalism. Love and relationship are non-existent. Fear is the root.
Furthermore, Calvan himself did not espouse some of the modern hyper doctrines which are re surging in today's modern reformed churches. I consider myself reformed, but not so much I deny men must repent and believe to be saved.
staysharp
08-20-2010, 04:28 PM
Can you qualify this statement? Id like evidence that a hypercalvanist is a legalist...isn't that an oxymoron?
He's a hyper Calvanist yet John is a legalist?
What does either have to do with his view of the Trinity?
the denial of free will is legalism. bondage at its best. We are God's children, not slaves who work without thought or reward. The kingdom of heaven is made up of volunteers who love the Lord irregardless of merit.
btw, doesn't have anything to do with the trinity...lol
Jermyn Davidson
08-20-2010, 07:29 PM
Not interested in getting into a debate, but suffice to say this; the denial of free will is legalism.
The doctrines of total depravity, irresistible grace and predestination deny one has any part in their salvific process, but rather God's justice rules, rather than his love. God to them is not "all" loving, but only to those whom he chooses to love. The scripture they use is "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated"...which if u study this objectively, God's talking about the nation of Edomites which did much harm to Israel and also that word hate means "love less" in the Hebrew idiom.
God is not so sovereign that he violates his own nature. He is all loving. He died for all...
When defining the gospel, John believes in limited atonement. That Christ's death was not for "all" but only the elect. This doctrine denies grace for all, but rather only to the elect and since no one knows who they are, we are to preach the gospel and the elect will respond. Spurgeon said that if the elect had a big "E" on their backs, we would know who they are and wouldn't need to preach.
He also believes in the perseverance of the saints which does not truly guarantee salvation until death and then one cannot be sure you are part of the elect. Many puritan calvanists died fearful of their salvation not knowing if they were part of the elect.
If one studies the roots of calvanism, you will understand my statement concerning legalism. Love and relationship are non-existent. Fear is the root.
Furthermore, Calvan himself did not espouse some of the modern hyper doctrines which are re surging in today's modern reformed churches. I consider myself reformed, but not so much I deny men must repent and believe to be saved.
Staysharp,
I understand your point of view now.
How do you interpret the scriptures that point to GOD hardening Pharoah's heart?
How do you interpret the scriptures that clearly state that GOD knows who are His?
How do you interpret the scripture that no one can come unto the Father unless the Spirit draws them?
If we are a chosen generation and a royal priesthood, who chose us and who has annointed us? Was there a time that GOD did not know that we would be chosen and anointed?
From what I have heard from MacArthur, there is not any fear mongering in his sermons. There are clear declarations to depart form sin. He presents scriptural concepts for living in a way that is applicable today.
John MacArthur is no more POLYTHEISTIC than we are UNITARIAN.
Praxeas
08-20-2010, 07:38 PM
HIJACK ALERT!!!!! :ursofunny
Jermyn Davidson
08-20-2010, 07:41 PM
HIJACK ALERT!!!!! :ursofunny
I promise that is not my intent-- it never is. :chat
Michael
08-20-2010, 08:39 PM
John is a died and true reformed hyper Calvanist. His theology is mixed up IMO and he does not understand God's love. Trinitarians do not believe in 3 gods, however John is a legalist at heart which far surpasses any damage trinitarianism would ever do.
This sounds like a Calvanist with ADHD....:bliss:woot:rooting:dancing:shockamoo:bang head
Jason B
08-20-2010, 08:47 PM
Heres a bump of the original post of this thread minus the calvinist disclaimer. Good grief. :blah :pullhair :D
I was listening to a John MacArthur audio earlier today and he made a statement to the effect that:
"The council of the Trinity decided who would be redeemed before the creation of the world."
I like alot of MacArthur's stuff, though there are some areas of disagreement. And I personally don't think that trinitarians are going to hell simply because their trinitarians, anymore than oneness are going to hell because their oneness.
Those things said, when I often hear trinitarians adamently deny they worship "3 gods" and sling mud on oneness people by saying we are sladering them, offering strawman arguments, and the such like. They normally ATTEMPT to choose their words carefully so as not to use the words "seperate" and "beings" and the such like when debating/discussing with a oneness person, BUT when the arena is not a godhead debate they make statements such as this, which to my mind are completely irrational and foolish...IF you want to claim to be strictly monotheistic.
How can a trinitarina TRULY say the believe "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD" and at the same refer to the "one God" as a COUNCIL who decided TOGETHER who would be the elect (saved) before the creation?
seekerman
08-20-2010, 08:54 PM
Rule of thumb.....
Trinitarians believe in three Gods, oneness believe in two Jesus'.
Praxeas
08-20-2010, 11:02 PM
Rule of thumb.....
Trinitarians believe in three Gods, oneness believe in two Jesus'.
No, Oneness believes in one Jesus. One person not two
Rule of thumb addendum...seekerman believes in 2 gods, one is God and the other is like him but not the original
staysharp
08-21-2010, 07:38 AM
Staysharp,
I understand your point of view now.
How do you interpret the scriptures that point to GOD hardening Pharoah's heart?
How do you interpret the scriptures that clearly state that GOD knows who are His?
How do you interpret the scripture that no one can come unto the Father unless the Spirit draws them?
If we are a chosen generation and a royal priesthood, who chose us and who has annointed us? Was there a time that GOD did not know that we would be chosen and anointed?
From what I have heard from MacArthur, there is not any fear mongering in his sermons. There are clear declarations to depart form sin. He presents scriptural concepts for living in a way that is applicable today.
John MacArthur is no more POLYTHEISTIC than we are UNITARIAN.
the scripture tells us why; Romans 9:7 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
No doubt; God uses who he chooses and with regard to His call to satisfy His divine purpose, yes he calls whom he chooses. No debate there. The problem is salvation, not one of a specific task for a specific reason.
Jesus said..."if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me"...Calvary is the voice of God calling every human being back to God.
The generation of the Apostles was chosen for the specific task of delivering the message of Christ and saving the Jewish people before the destruction of Jerusalem. This generation shall not pass away...etc. Save yourself from this untoward generation...this was Peter's plea to those who murdered Christ.
Understand I am not saying McArthur isn't a man of God, etc. I am saying some of the doctrines he espouses IMO are unbiblical and damaging to love.
Truth is you can preach all you want to about sin, but until someone falls in love with Christ and his body, the selfishness will continue. The antidote for sin is God's love exampled by Christ. God's Agape love places others above yourself...loving God and others more than you love yourself; the first and greatest of all commands...one will rarely sin against others when he places them first; by loving them according to God's definition of love...1 Cor 13.
Evil is simply the absence of God's love.
Jermyn Davidson
08-21-2010, 01:04 PM
the scripture tells us why; Romans 9:7 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
No doubt; God uses who he chooses and with regard to His call to satisfy His divine purpose, yes he calls whom he chooses. No debate there. The problem is salvation, not one of a specific task for a specific reason.
Jesus said..."if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me"...Calvary is the voice of God calling every human being back to God.
The generation of the Apostles was chosen for the specific task of delivering the message of Christ and saving the Jewish people before the destruction of Jerusalem. This generation shall not pass away...etc. Save yourself from this untoward generation...this was Peter's plea to those who murdered Christ.
Understand I am not saying McArthur isn't a man of God, etc. I am saying some of the doctrines he espouses IMO are unbiblical and damaging to love.
Truth is you can preach all you want to about sin, but until someone falls in love with Christ and his body, the selfishness will continue. The antidote for sin is God's love exampled by Christ. God's Agape love places others above yourself...loving God and others more than you love yourself; the first and greatest of all commands...one will rarely sin against others when he places them first; by loving them according to God's definition of love...1 Cor 13.
Evil is simply the absence of God's love.
Even still, God has given us free will. Does He not know the end from the beginning-- those who will use their free will to succesfully resist the drawing of the Holy Spirit?
staysharp
08-21-2010, 02:14 PM
Even still, God has given us free will. Does He not know the end from the beginning-- those who will use their free will to succesfully resist the drawing of the Holy Spirit?
yup, that's called rebellion...the nation of Israel repeatedly resisted the drawing of God. a true dyed in the wool Calvanist doesn't embrace free will, but rather "irresistible grace" which is a fancy word for "god will get u if he really wants to"...
pelathais
08-21-2010, 10:04 PM
I was listening to a John MacArthur audio earlier today and he made a statement to the effect that:
"The coucnil of the Trinity decided who would be redeemed before the creation of the world."
I like alot of MacArthur's stuff, though there are some areas of disagreement. And I personally don't think that trinitarians are going to hell simply because their trinitarians, anymore than oneness are going to hell because their oneness.
Those things said, when I often hear trinitarians adamently deny they worship "3 gods" and sling mud on oneness people by saying we are sladering them, offering strawman arguments, and the such like. They normally ATTEMPT to choose their words carefully so as not to use the words "seperate" and "beings" and the such like when debating/discussing with a oneness person, BUT when the arena is not a godhead debate they make statements such as this, which to my mind are completely irrational and foolish...IF you want to claim to be strictly monotheistic.
How can a trinitarina TRULY say the believe "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD" and at the same refer to the "one God" as a COUNCIL who decided TOGETHER who would be the elect (saved) before the creation?
PS-how does that work, before creation, mankind has not been created yet, does the "holy trinity" draw straws, a names out of hat, what? On what basis is one choosen to inherit eternal life, and the other eternal damnation?
Here's what I think of that doctrine :vomit
I can't speak for MacArthur, but that terminology is actually Biblical. The problem appears to be that you heard "council" when MacArthur was no doubt saying "counsel."
I'm willing to bet just from what you've said, that the text for MacArthur's message (at least this portion of it) was from the First Chapter of Ephesians. Ephesians 1:1-12, speaks of the "predestination" of God's "elect.' It is a portion of Scripture that a lot of Evangelical ministers will often turn to when preaching about predestination.
Read the passage again, especially Ephesians 1:11, and see if that doesn't help to settle everyone's stomach. I doubt very much that even MacArthur views the "Godhead" as a "council."
"In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 1:11
pelathais
08-21-2010, 10:11 PM
yup, that's called rebellion...the nation of Israel repeatedly resisted the drawing of God. a true dyed in the wool Calvanist doesn't embrace free will, but rather "irresistible grace" which is a fancy word for "god will get u if he really wants to"...
This is really a different topic than the opener... but, Hey! Who cares, right?
staysharp, if God really "wanted to get you" - do you think you would be able to resist?
He is God, after all. He does do "all things after the counsel of His will." If He "wants" you - you're gonna be His.
johnny44
08-21-2010, 10:14 PM
Me, myself and I?And your shadow.
johnny44
08-21-2010, 10:21 PM
Isn't a Trinitarina an Italian lady who believes in the trinity?No,its a trinitarian ballerina who dances and glides all over the .................
Jason B
08-21-2010, 10:28 PM
I can't speak for MacArthur, but that terminology is actually Biblical. The problem appears to be that you heard "council" when MacArthur was no doubt saying "counsel."
I'm willing to bet just from what you've said, that the text for MacArthur's message (at least this portion of it) was from the First Chapter of Ephesians. Ephesians 1:1-12, speaks of the "predestination" of God's "elect.' It is a portion of Scripture that a lot of Evangelical ministers will often turn to when preaching about predestination.
Read the passage again, especially Ephesians 1:11, and see if that doesn't help to settle everyone's stomach. I doubt very much that even MacArthur views the "Godhead" as a "council."
"In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 1:11
Perhaps Pel. The message was on Ephesians 1, however, with the context he used, I tend to think He MEANT "council", though I'd have to listen to it again, and I'm not in the mood at the moment.
One reason that I lean towards "council" is MacArthur is believes in a VERY defined godhead of persons. He has made statements and written things that I am just amazed by. I have been reading his book on Romans ch. 1-8 (540 pages) and he has made several statements along the same tritheistic lines.
I'm not posting this in ill will or anti Macarthur. I like his stuff enough to use in my sig line.
Jason B
08-30-2010, 08:00 AM
I can't speak for MacArthur, but that terminology is actually Biblical. The problem appears to be that you heard "council" when MacArthur was no doubt saying "counsel."
I'm willing to bet just from what you've said, that the text for MacArthur's message (at least this portion of it) was from the First Chapter of Ephesians. Ephesians 1:1-12, speaks of the "predestination" of God's "elect.' It is a portion of Scripture that a lot of Evangelical ministers will often turn to when preaching about predestination.
Read the passage again, especially Ephesians 1:11, and see if that doesn't help to settle everyone's stomach. I doubt very much that even MacArthur views the "Godhead" as a "council."
"In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 1:11
Pel, I listened to it again. There is no doubt he says "council" in fact he says it plural "councils"
"How does church growth theory fit into that?
Soverign election has already been determined, it has determined who will be saved, and constitute the regenerate church. That was done in the councilS of the trinity before time began."
gty.org sermon #gty114 @ the 1:04:00-1:03:00 mark
I guess you can quit ripping me over my reaction now.
pelathais
08-30-2010, 06:51 PM
Pel, I listened to it again. There is no doubt he says "council" in fact he says it plural "councils"
"How does church growth theory fit into that?
Soverign election has already been determined, it has determined who will be saved, and constitute the regenerate church. That was done in the councilS of the trinity before time began."
gty.org sermon #gty114 @ the 1:04:00-1:03:00 mark
I guess you can quit ripping me over my reaction now.
If he is teaching from Ephesians 1, then I would lean very heavily on the idea that he said, "counselS of the Trinity..." Suppose we could ask him.
I'm not trying to defend this particular view, just saying that there is a bit of a difference here in the extremities to which a person might go with their rather inherently tri-theistic terminology. This is a big reason that I personally don't use the word "Persons" to describe the nature of God.
God's nature is complex, particularly in the ways in which we as humans perceive Him; however He is still One.
pelathais
08-30-2010, 07:13 PM
MacArthur is (was!) recorded in a video with text here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2FKOsSiPXKkJ:dinghome.net/2008/03/05/general-session-1-john-macarthur/+%2B%22counsels+of+the+trinity%22+%2Bmacarthur&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
This is the from the Google cache of a conference where he was apparently a keynote speaker. Here he says, "Sovereign election has already determined who will constitute the redeemed church. That was determined in the counsels of the Trinity before time began."
It is a common term used quite a bit by Evangelicals and others:
The Archbishop of Canterbury:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1968
Wayne Gruden (a popular writer and theologian):
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9VNsrotaR5UJ:wordsofgrace.wordpress .com/page/63/+%2B%22counsels+of+the+trinity%22+%2Bmacarthur&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
J.C. Ryle (Victorian Era Bishop of Liverpool whose books are still popular):
http://rediscoveringthebible.com/Ryle14vv12-17.pdf
MacArthur is (was!) recorded in a video with text here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2FKOsSiPXKkJ:dinghome.net/2008/03/05/general-session-1-john-macarthur/+%2B%22counsels+of+the+trinity%22+%2Bmacarthur&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
This is the from the Google cache of a conference where he was apparently a keynote speaker. Here he says, "Sovereign election has already determined who will constitute the redeemed church. That was determined in the counsels of the Trinity before time began."
Any transcripts available of these "cousnels of the Trinity before time began"? Sounds interesting!
Jason B
08-30-2010, 08:23 PM
MacArthur is (was!) recorded in a video with text here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2FKOsSiPXKkJ:dinghome.net/2008/03/05/general-session-1-john-macarthur/+%2B%22counsels+of+the+trinity%22+%2Bmacarthur&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
This is the from the Google cache of a conference where he was apparently a keynote speaker. Here he says, "Sovereign election has already determined who will constitute the redeemed church. That was determined in the counsels of the Trinity before time began."
It is a common term used quite a bit by Evangelicals and others:
The Archbishop of Canterbury:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1968
Wayne Gruden (a popular writer and theologian):
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9VNsrotaR5UJ:wordsofgrace.wordpress .com/page/63/+%2B%22counsels+of+the+trinity%22+%2Bmacarthur&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
J.C. Ryle (Victorian Era Bishop of Liverpool whose books are still popular):
http://rediscoveringthebible.com/Ryle14vv12-17.pdf
Sovereign election has already been determined. It has determined who will be saved and constitute the regenerate church. That was done in the councils of the Trinity before time began.
source: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/GTY114_A-Biblical-Response-to-the-ChurchGrowth-Movement?q=Church+Growth+movement
Pel, I understand where your coming from. John MacArthurs website has the text of the sermon above using the term "councils". I don't really care which he meant, but my mai point was that trinitarians DO certainly at least speak of God in a way that lends itself towards the tritheism they so vehemently deny they believe. I've already mentioned my respect for John MacArthur, so this thread wasn't an attack at him.
However, in the creation thread you were really take hard digs at me over this, when in reality it seems at least plausible, if not probable that I understood exactly what he said. I guess all I'm asking is quit using my response to his comments in an effort to undermine my credibility, especially in light that his official website text of the sermon has the exact tem that I thought I heard him use.
pelathais
08-30-2010, 08:39 PM
Sovereign election has already been determined. It has determined who will be saved and constitute the regenerate church. That was done in the councils of the Trinity before time began.
source: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/GTY114_A-Biblical-Response-to-the-ChurchGrowth-Movement?q=Church+Growth+movement
Pel, I understand where your coming from. John MacArthurs website has the text of the sermon above using the term "councils". I don't really care which he meant, but my mai point was that trinitarians DO certainly at least speak of God in a way that lends itself towards the tritheism they so vehemently deny they believe. I've already mentioned my respect for John MacArthur, so this thread wasn't an attack at him.
However, in the creation thread you were really take hard digs at me over this, when in reality it seems at least plausible, if not probable that I understood exactly what he said. I guess all I'm asking is quit using my response to his comments in an effort to undermine my credibility, especially in light that his official website text of the sermon has the exact tem that I thought I heard him use.
Thanks Jason, however, since this phrase is so ubiquitous and even Biblical ("counsel"), and the fact that other texts of MacArthur's same use of the phrase has it as "counsel" (see my post above), I have taken the trouble to bring this matter up with his webmaster(s) - (see attached).
This might be interesting. Who knows?
Jason B
08-30-2010, 08:59 PM
While I was on Grace To You I heard this response to a question on the trinity. i quoted a post I put on CARM:
YASHAM: I was excited to come.
JOHN: That's good.
YASHAM: My name is Yasham, and I'm a new believer. So I kind of have a complex question. The Trinity...I understand the Holy Ghost. I understand God, our Father. And then, I get to Christ. And there are references in the Bible that He's the Lord. There's references that He is the Son of God, that He is Son of Man, and, that He also takes care of the earth. But, we also are praying to God, Father. So, I'm confused.
CONFUSED ABOUT THE TRINITY?
JOHN: Well, you're not really confused. You're just right on target.
She's confused, JMA says, "well your right on". He's correct on one count, the trinity is pure confusion. MacArthur is continued below, its a bit lengthy so I won't comment, just putting it out there. The yellow highlights are from my searching key words to find this Q &A, I don't know how to undo them in cut and paste, please disregard the highlights.
(MacArthur continued) "you've recognized the mystery of the Trinity. And the mystery of the Trinity is that the Spirit is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God. The Spirit is the Spirit of Christ as well. You have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in you. You have the Spirit of God dwelling in you, and, you have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you. God is the Creator, and yet, all things are made by Christ. And yet, it was the Holy Spirit who moved over the face of the waters and brought creation into existence. You pray to God, and yet, you can pray to the Son of God, and you can also pray to the Spirit of God, and you have indications of that all throughout Scripture.
You see particular responsibilities that members of the Trinity have, but, as far as the person is concerned, you cannot draw hard lines between them. We do know that God is the Creator; the Old Testament talks about that. He is the Creator. And, thus, He bears the name Father as the Source, as it were. But, we also know that nothing was made without Christ. That's the way the gospel of John begins. "All things were made by Him, and nothing was made that was not made by Him." And so we do understand that, while the Father was doing the creation, as identified in the Old Testament, He was not apart from the Son, nor was He apart from the Spirit.
You have, in the Trinity, an indivisible oneness, and yet, specifically, there are duties that members of the Trinity are stated to have been given. The Father, as we understand, is primarily viewed in Scripture as the Creator and the Source of Life. The Son is primarily viewed as the Savior and the Redeemer, but God is also the Redeemer: "God our Redeemer," the Old Testament says. And, so, I understand the confusion, but it's not really confusion. It is simply an awakening, recognition of the mystery of the Trinity. God and Jesus are the same. God and the Holy Spirit are the same, and yet, they are distinctly three persons. Now, that is paradoxical, apparently, to us, that is contradictory, apparently to us, and that is inscrutable. If you have one God, one God, and that one God has always had three persons within the one God.
You're just awakening to the fact that this is an impossible reality to explain. So, what we say about that is, you can't figure it out.
...When you asked the question about why is Salvation through His Son...what greater demonstration could God ever make of His love than to give up a member of the Trinity whom He loved with a perfect love? " END QUOTE
Wow. I don't believe trinitarians are tritheistic, BUT I think an honest trinitarian would have to admit, that there seems pretty tritheistic.
Now, for those of you who will say I'm attempting to discredit trinitarians or specifically John MacArthur, I would have you to know he is one of, perhaps my favorite, preachers and authors. I thoughly enjoy his teachings and writings (though I don't agree with his trinitarianism, calvinism, and a couple of other areas) and greatly appreciated the stands he took on Larry King, especially when compared with those of Joel Osteen.
Click the link for the text version. On the page there is an option to listen. The audio is long, however this was the first question of the night, so if you listen to the first five minutes you'll get the question. This explaination of the trinity is terribly unconvincing.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/70-24_Bible-Questions-and-Answers-Part-52?q=Biblical+Questions+and+Answers+part+53
Jason B
08-30-2010, 09:03 PM
Thanks Jason, however, since this phrase is so ubiquitous and even Biblical ("counsel"), and the fact that other texts of MacArthur's same use of the phrase has it as "counsel" (see my post above), I have taken the trouble to bring this matter up with his webmaster(s) - (see attached).
This might be interesting. Who knows?
One of these days I've got to learn that capture screen trick.
Yeah, maybe they will correct it OR maybe not. It could be interesting. he certainly makes some doozie comments about the trinity. The post I just made was before I saw your reply, but its an example of some of the things he says.
PS-I'm glad you chilled out a bit, you've been somewhat moody here lately.
Jason B
10-08-2010, 06:25 PM
"The Bible says that in the beginning there was only God. He has always been. God has no beginning and no ending. There were no sun, no stars, no planets, no Earth --and no people.There was just God But He was not alone, because God is really three persons --God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three together are God."
I Believe in Jesus
Leading Your Child to Christ
by John MacArthur copyright 1999
The way that Dr. MacArthur says that --that God was "not alone, because God is really three persons" sounds almost tri-theistic, doesn't it?
I didn't notice this post earlier. It is very polytheistic.
I really enjoy JM's bible teaching, it is some of the finest I've heard. What I think is that many trinitarians simply accept the trinity as orthodoxy becuase its what they've been fed all their lives, but in reality it just doesn't make any sense. But they have been preconditioned against any other view so that even when exposed to another view such as oneness, they are automatically on the defensive. I think that is whats stifling fellowship more than anything is that some folks are judging other folks in areas where they themselves admit to have absolutely no idea how their trnity doctrine makes sense. (see other thread here:http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=31809)
Jermyn Davidson
10-08-2010, 06:54 PM
I didn't notice this post earlier. It is very polytheistic.
I really enjoy JM's bible teaching, it is some of the finest I've heard. What I think is that many trinitarians simply accept the trinity as orthodoxy becuase its what they've been fed all their lives, but in reality it just doesn't make any sense. But they have been preconditioned against any other view so that even when exposed to another view such as oneness, they are automatically on the defensive. I think that is whats stifling fellowship more than anything is that some folks are judging other folks in areas where they themselves admit to have absolutely no idea how their trnity doctrine makes sense. (see other thread here:http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=31809)
This is not a personal attack.
If the Godhead is so easily defined and explained by you, what or who does that make you?
Where is the mystery?
It's not a biblical requirement for salvation to understand Oneness.
It is a biblical requirement to recognize Jesus Christ as the SON of the Living GOD.
His identity as the SON is the ROCK that His CHURCH is built upon.
Jason B
10-08-2010, 07:11 PM
This is not a personal attack.
If the Godhead is so easily defined and explained by you, what or who does that make you?
Where is the mystery?
It's not a biblical requirement for salvation to understand Oneness.
It is a biblical requirement to recognize Jesus Christ as the SON of the Living GOD.
His identity as the SON is the ROCK that His CHURCH is built upon.
JD, I've never claimed to be the be all and end all final authority on the godhead. However, I do believe that the "mystery" of godlineness is not concerning how many "persons" there are of God, but refers to the incarnation and the complexities thereof.
My point in this thread and the other thread is why are so many trinitarians so aggressive against oneness people and their theology to the point of broad bushingly condmening them all to hell on one hand, and on the other hand making nonsense statements and admitting that they "do not understand the trinity, they can't explain it, they just believe it."
Jermyn Davidson
10-08-2010, 07:49 PM
JD, I've never claimed to be the be all and end all final authority on the godhead. However, I do believe that the "mystery" of godlineness is not concerning how many "persons" there are of God, but refers to the incarnation and the complexities thereof.
My point in this thread and the other thread is why are so many trinitarians so aggressive against oneness people and their theology to the point of broad bushingly condmening them all to hell on one hand, and on the other hand making nonsense statements and admitting that they "do not understand the trinity, they can't explain it, they just believe it."
I just don't see or hear that many Trinitarians sending Oneness people to hell because of our theology.
Jason B
10-08-2010, 08:31 PM
I just don't see or hear that many Trinitarians sending Oneness people to hell because of our theology.
I don't run into it much in person. Becuase I'm considered a compromiser, I don't have many oneness friends where I live, thus most of my fellowship is with trinitarians. We hardly debate the godhead, and we have great fellowship. What's important to me is important to them, which is aa gospel which changes life through real faith in Christ. Christian life that is sperate from the world (not in exclusion, or necessarily in dress, but in morals and lifestyle). And a desire to grow in the knowledge and likeness of Christ. Since i'm in TX most of these people are baptist. Last Thursday I preached in the county jail with a trinitarian pentecostal minister and we had a great time, very good jail service. So I'm not trying to cme at this as a oneness elitist.
It is particulary on the internet (forums, youtube, self proclaimed apologetic websites,etc) , in some of the christian bookstores (especially Beisner and Hannagraf), and on the radio. Basically some of the most notable and influential trinitarians quite easily dismiss all oneness believers as damned heretics. One of my favorite preachers, John MacArthur, considers all oneness people lost because they don't believe in the trinity, while at the same time making some of the most ridiculous statements about the godhead I have ever heard. [also see this post #45 in this thread: http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=957160&postcount=45]
Thus my point is how can a trinitarian condemn all oneness to hell and ignore all conversion and spiritual fruit in the livew of oneness people simply because our conscience and study of the scripture will not allow us to believe that the one God is really a council or members (sometimes called persons)? I love trinitarians, but I do believe that the trinity when given a hard definition and thus manifested in statements like I have posted in the two threads in question, is the height of absurdity.
I just don't see or hear that many Trinitarians sending Oneness people to hell because of our theology.
It seems to me that Trinitarians often claim belief in the trinity as the only orthodox Christian belief. By this they mean (in my opinion) that God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and all three persons are God. Therefore when OP's state that they do not accept the doctrine of the trinity they are considered unorthodox. I realize there are differences among OP's and some believe that Jesus became God at Jordan and some believe there is no longer a Son of God, but I think that the beliefs of most of us who call ourselves OP are not very far from what trinitarians would call orthodox. I think a lot of it is terms and semantics.
[QUOTE=Jason Badejo;971664
...
Thus my point is how can a trinitarian condemn all oneness to hell and ignore all conversion and spiritual fruit in the livew of oneness people simply because our conscience and study of the scripture will not allow us to believe that the one God is really a council or members (sometimes called persons)? I love trinitarians, but I do believe that the trinity when given a hard definition and thus manifested in statements like I have posted in the two threads in question, is the height of absurdity.[/QUOTE]
Years ago I read a book by Carl Brumbach on the trinity. He disagreed with those he called "Jesus Only." I really don't remember much of the book -it's been many years. The one thing that stuck in my mind was his assessment of the "Jesus Only" people. He said, "Their hearts are right but their minds are wrong."
TGBTG
10-08-2010, 09:00 PM
It seems to me that Trinitarians often claim belief in the trinity as the only orthodox Christian belief. By this they mean (in my opinion) that God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and all three persons are God. Therefore when OP's state that they do not accept the doctrine of the trinity they are considered unorthodox. I realize there are differences among OP's and some believe that Jesus became God at Jordan and some believe there is no longer a Son of God, but I think that the beliefs of most of us who call ourselves OP are not very far from what trinitarians would call orthodox. I think a lot of it is terms and semantics.
To a large extent, I would agree with this post. However, I believe it goes beyond semantics when an individual tells his pastor "I want to be REBAPTIZED in the Name of Jesus Christ. A revelation from God alone has to take place for an individual to know who Jesus is.
Luke 10:22 "...No man knoweth the Son but the Father and the Father but the Son and He to whom he (the Son) will reveal Him"
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.