# John MacArthur on The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing !!!



## Mayflower (Aug 23, 2009)

TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL 2008:

This message from John MacArthur on The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing:
The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!

T4G 2008 | Together for the Gospel (T4G)


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 23, 2009)

Mayflower said:


> The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!



Honest question: was there any doubt about MacArthur's position on the Doctrines of Grace? I thought it was pretty clear and well-known for many years now.


----------



## Hungus (Aug 23, 2009)

He is also a Dispensational so he gets grace 1/2 wrong. There is an innate equivocation on the term "grace" in dispensationalism.


----------



## Mayflower (Aug 23, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> > The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!
> ...



Of course and you are right and i know this also for many years, but again this great message made it so clear!


----------



## Edward (Aug 23, 2009)

Mayflower said:


> TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL 2008:
> 
> This message from John MacArthur on The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing:
> The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!
> ...



No, he isn't. He gets many things right, but he gets some things very wrong. His teachings should be listened to only with great discernment.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 23, 2009)

Yes, Dr. MacArthur is a dear brother with an extraordinary teaching ability and a passion for teaching God's word. Many of us have benefited from his teaching.

He's come to a full "five points" (doctrines of grace) position "the hard way," by starting without a confession of faith or time-tested historic systematic theology. So, he has got there through persevering through many deep truths of Scripture on his own.

While he is solidly "Calvinist" in his soteriology, and has been for a long time, he describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist." He has not absorbed the full import of reformed theology but has even imported a couple into his dispensational framework. He has been in error about a few things in other areas, as well.

This illustrates the benefit of having a confession of faith- a systematic theology such as the Westminster Standards that gives one an overall framework for interpreting the whole of Scripture in many of its important details, rather than relying on one person gradually developing his own views, and following that.

Reformed theology is, at minimum:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession of faith

Being solid on the doctrines of grace, incorporating a couple parts of covenant theology into dispensationalism (which is internally inconsistent, by the way), and not having a written, defined confession of faith defining one's systematic theology does not make one "reformed."

It makes one headed that way, used by God in some ways, but not there yet.


----------



## Herald (Aug 23, 2009)

I am not and apologist for Dr. MacArthur, but I will say that he has been a faithful servant of Christ in his public ministry. His advocacy of biblical eldership has helped steer many churches away from heavy handed spiritual leadership. He has also been on the right side of the debate on the Lordship of Christ. He paid a price for his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." He was disinvited by Christian colleges and seminaries. Radio stations took him off the air. I disagree with Dr. MacArthur's dispensationalism, but I praise God for the work He has done for Christ's church.


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 23, 2009)

You won't have to wait long for his systematic theology Scott. It's in progress. And his doctrinal statement is nearly as in-depth as the WCF.

He's paid a dear price for much of his work. And, to a point, it's taken a toll. In his more candid moments he comments on this. Even the effort of putting out so much material has a price. He commented once that doing the Study Bible was something he never fully recovered from.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 23, 2009)

Mayflower said:


> TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL 2008:
> 
> This message from John MacArthur on The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing:
> The Doctrine of Absolute Inability makes so clear again that he is CALVINIST!!!!!
> ...



His fellow pastor and book editor, Phil Johnson, was instrumental in winning him over to Particular Redemption. I appreciate much about MacArthur but he really put his foot in his mouth in the past year by trashing Amils.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 23, 2009)

Herald said:


> He has also been on the right side of the debate on the Lordship of Christ. He paid a price for his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." He was disinvited by Christian colleges and seminaries. Radio stations took him off the air.



I remember once when I went back to one of the churches I was pastor of. The present pastor had MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus" sitting on his desk. I picked up and starting reading it, knowing that the pastor didn't agree with MacArthur. He said, "What do you think of *THAT *book! I told him that I thought it was great and agreed with MacArthur. Others in the room were incredulous. "How could you agree with that stuff!" 

Anyway, I stated my case. Didn't win anybody over, but they still let me preach there!


----------



## KSon (Aug 23, 2009)

May God grant us the grace to be as firm, gentle, and unswerving as Brother MacArthur if our lot ever has us in a very public spotlight such as 'Larry King Live' surrounded by people mocking the 'foolishness' of the Cross.


----------



## dr_parsley (Aug 24, 2009)

Edward said:


> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> > TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL 2008:
> ...



I would be *very* concerned if that wasn't your attitude with every preacher.

I should clarify: I refer to the "discernment" part of what you said, rather than the "very wrong"!


----------



## Bald_Brother (Aug 24, 2009)

Herald said:


> I am not and apologist for Dr. MacArthur, but I will say that he has been a faithful servant of Christ in his public ministry. His advocacy of biblical eldership has helped steer many churches away from heavy handed spiritual leadership. He has also been on the right side of the debate on the Lordship of Christ. He paid a price for his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." He was disinvited by Christian colleges and seminaries. Radio stations took him off the air. I disagree with Dr. MacArthur's dispensationalism, but I praise God for the work He has done for Christ's church.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 24, 2009)

He's good but his dispensationalism gets in the way at times. But I'm *very* anti-dispensationalist....maybe overboard.


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 24, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> He's good but his dispensationalism gets in the way at times. But I'm *very* anti-dispensationalist....maybe overboard.



I hope you mean anti-dispensational*ism*?


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 24, 2009)

Well, both. If you didn't have dispensationalism you wouldn't have dispensationalists. But the theology wouldn't be a menaces if there was no one around to believe in it. So I'm against the theology and against a person's belief in them....although I"m not anti-person. It's the person purporting that doctrine that's dangerous....not the doctrine sitting on a shelf.


----------



## itsreed (Aug 24, 2009)

A wise distinction Sarah. It's always the person that's the source of the foolishness.

If we think we need to throw the baby out with the water, we better be sure we are able to (winsomely) tell the momma why she should be ashamed.

P.S. I count Dr. MacArthur as one of my spiritual fathers - his Grace to You broadcast was instrumental in my early years. Got me off to a solid start. Nothwithstanding his errors (dispensationalism is sometimes long in dying), I take great encouragement in his coming to reformed convictions - and I'm not worried if he never adopts our labels.


----------



## ExGentibus (Aug 25, 2009)

I'll see him at a conference here next October. The subject is Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, so hopefully he will not talk about the definition of Israel, or I will find myself shaking my head and sigh once or twice 

Lately I have been reading and listening to him a lot, and I can tell he is definitely a consistent Calvinist and, apart from his dispensational hermeneutics, he is quite a solid teacher on many themes. I thank the Lord for his serious commitment to the Gospel.
From what I could see in my church, which is very close to his theology and has many ties with the Master's college, he is probably moving very slowly toward the adoption of the Second LBCF. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking...


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 25, 2009)

ExGentibus said:


> I'll see him at a conference here next October. The subject is Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, so hopefully he will not talk about the definition of Israel, or I will find myself shaking my head and sigh once or twice
> 
> Lately I have been reading and listening to him a lot, and I can tell he is definitely a consistent Calvinist and, apart from his dispensational hermeneutics, he is quite a solid teacher on many themes. I thank the Lord for his serious commitment to the Gospel.
> From what I could see in my church, which is very close to his theology and has many ties with the Master's college, he is probably moving very slowly toward the adoption of the Second LBCF. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking...



Most likely wishful thinking. He is decidedly NOT covenantal. I don't see that happening. His doctrinal statement is not anti-covenantal so much as that it clearly is not covenantal. You probably won't have to worry about him proclaiming Israel. It's not his bent, and the topic doesn't lend itself to it. But, if the leadership of Aurora asks him to somehow fit it in, he very well might do so. At the first Focus conference he was asked to focus on God's sovereignty, and he did. Joe Aleppo was elated. I would encourage considering whether or not a "sigh" and shake of the head is a symptom of pride and disrespect though.

Enjoy the conference. I hope to make it over one day. We've developed some dear friends who serve in Italy and just had a new missionary to Italy stay with us recently. There is some excellent work going on there. But there is also an element of pride among many whose reputation for Calvin is known before their love for Christ.


----------



## ExGentibus (Aug 25, 2009)

My words were mostly tongue in cheek, as I have a huge respect for him and his work and I know very well that I have only to learn from him. But I really thank you for your kind admonition, brother.



Wannabee said:


> Most likely wishful thinking. He is decidedly NOT covenantal. I don't see that happening. His doctrinal statement is not anti-covenantal so much as that it clearly is not covenantal. You probably won't have to worry about him proclaiming Israel. It's not his bent, and the topic doesn't lend itself to it. But, if the leadership of Aurora asks him to somehow fit it in, he very well might do so. At the first Focus conference he was asked to focus on God's sovereignty, and he did. Joe Aleppo was elated. I would encourage considering whether or not a "sigh" and shake of the head is a symptom of pride and disrespect though.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 25, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> ExGentibus said:
> 
> 
> > I'll see him at a conference here next October. The subject is Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, so hopefully he will not talk about the definition of Israel, or I will find myself shaking my head and sigh once or twice
> ...



And only for those following, Mr. MacArthur describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist." That means he doesn't fully embrace dispensationalism, which is a framework for viewing the Bible. 

While he does embrace main points of dispensationalism, such as a different redemption plan for Israel than for the church, I'm not sure if the "leaks" are more in the direction of covenant theology or not. 

Here, in Dr. MacArthur's own words is a section where he describes his "leaky dispensationalism" (quoted in length to give context):



> The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-16, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 26, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> While he does embrace main points of dispensationalism, such as a different redemption plan for Israel than for the church, I'm not sure if the "leaks" are more in the direction of covenant theology or not.



That's not accurate Scott. At least if you're stating that he makes any claim of salvation outside of Christ. If that's not what you're saying, then I misunderstood.


----------



## Michael Doyle (Aug 26, 2009)

I think of MacAthur as a gateway drug into Reformed Theology. Thats what he was for me.


----------



## caddy (Aug 26, 2009)

Ivan said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > He has also been on the right side of the debate on the Lordship of Christ. He paid a price for his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." He was disinvited by Christian colleges and seminaries. Radio stations took him off the air.
> ...



Ivan, don't want to derail this thread, but bring me up to speed on the controversy of the book if you will. I haven't read it and am not familiar with the "problem."


----------



## bookslover (Aug 27, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> You won't have to wait long for his systematic theology Scott. It's in progress. And his doctrinal statement is nearly as in-depth as the WCF.
> 
> He's paid a dear price for much of his work. And, to a point, it's taken a toll. In his more candid moments he comments on this. Even the effort of putting out so much material has a price. He commented once that doing the Study Bible was something he never fully recovered from.



That's intriguing, that he's writing a systematic theology - probably, first of all, for students at his seminary. I wonder how far away from publication it is. As for the study Bible, he himself says that most of the Old Testament side was done by professors at the seminary. He gives credit where it's due.


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 28, 2009)

bookslover said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > You won't have to wait long for his systematic theology Scott. It's in progress. And his doctrinal statement is nearly as in-depth as the WCF.
> ...



That's true. Same with the NT. He didn't write all the commentary notes. But he did edit the whole thing. 

The systematic is the same. The profs are working on it and MacArthur will most likely edit it. I would assume that it will join the other three books on preaching, pastoring and counseling, becoming a set of four. But I'm not sure.

Some of what's happened in the last few years may have something to do with some students becoming postmil. I know of one graduate who is very vocal about it and another one who was at one of the training centers changed his views as well. I'm sure there are other incidents, and I guess some papers were leaning that way. I've heard that this had something to do with his sermon at the Shep's conf a few years ago, and may have something to do with him finally giving in and working on a systematic. He once vowed not to.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 28, 2009)

I wonder if it's accurate to say that MacArthur "writes" books. Phil Johnson, as someone said, has been his close associate for many years, and is the man actually responsible for putting MacArthur's books together, if one wants to phrase it that way.

I imagine that most, if not all, of his books are sermons reduced to paper and edited together with, probably, a sprinkling of freshly-written new material here and there. Someone once told me that he thought that, with _The Gospel According to Jesus_, it seemed like the first chapter was fresh material while the rest of the book was edited sermon material.

I'm not knocking MacArthur here or accusing him of dishonesty when it comes to describing his books. After all, I've already noted that he gives proper credit where it's due.

I'm just wondering if it's just a little misleading to describe MacArthur as a man who "writes" books since, to most folks, that means sitting down at a computer and writing a manuscript from scratch.


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 28, 2009)

Good observations Richard. You'll notice in many of the books ascribed to him that he's listed as the editor. In others he's the author. There is a blend, but from what I understand you are correct. There's a joke around TMS about what MacArthur book Johnson is going to write next. Johnson has a great grasp of historical theology and helps MacArthur avoid traps. He uses MacArthur's sermons and compiles them, editing as he goes to change nuances of statements so that people don't think MacArthur's said something he didn't intend. We get away with some things in preaching that we can't get away with in writing.
So, who's the author? Is Calvin the author of his commentaries? He didn't write them. They were recorded. How about Spurgeon? He didn't write his sermons. But I would say they were the authors. It's their material. And the same goes for MacArthur. It's his material edited and compiled for clarity and contextual reasons.
Interestingly, _Hard to Believe_ was not edited by Johnson. And they were a bit disappointed in how it came out.
And MacArthur probably doesn't write anything from scratch. He starts with the Bible.


----------



## busdriver72 (Aug 28, 2009)

[quoteIvan, don't want to derail this thread, but bring me up to speed on the controversy of the book if you will. I haven't read it and am not familiar with the "problem." ][/quote]

"The Gospel According to Jesus" addresses the issue of easy believeism. He disassembles the old "walk the aisle, say this prayer" type of gospel as not being the one that Christ Himself brought. He emphasizes that Christ called people to not only believe Him, but to follow Him....be committed, devoted, loyal. He makes no apology for the fact the Christ IS Lord, and because He is Lord is why He is Savior. No Lordship = no salvation.
As to why it would be so contraversial is that many churches (I hate to say this, but so many Baptist churches) promote the "just raise your hand, bow your head, repeat this prayer" type salvation. No mention of repentance, turning from sin, being a follower of Christ, etc.
As a youth, I was a "victim(?)" of this type gospel.
I was simply told that if I didn't want to go to hell, that I need to "ask Jesus into my heart." (Whatever that meant.) I walked the aisle. He led me through a prayer where I "asked Jesus in my heart." I was baptized a couple of weeks later.
And that was it.
I had my "fire insurance," and I was ready to get on with my life, but the problem was my life had nothing to do with Jesus. If you had asked me if I was a Christian I would have told you "yes." If you had asked me who Jesus was and what His death on the cross meant, I couldn't have told you.
By God's grace and will He later made known to me the fullness of who Christ is and His calling to follow Him.
I am thankful that someone was willing to take the heat and proclaim the Lordship of Christ to a generation that does not want to hear it.


----------

