John MacArthur: POLYTHEIST?

[Michael The Disciple]

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]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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]

Originally Posted by staysharp

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]

HIJACK ALERT!!!!!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

HIJACK ALERT!!!!!

I promise that is not my intent-- it never is.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by staysharp

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....:bang head

[Jason B]

Heres a bump of the original post of this thread minus the calvinist disclaimer. Good grief.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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]

Rule of thumb.....

Trinitarians believe in three Gods, oneness believe in two Jesus'.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

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