# Fellowship with pastors trained at the Masters Seminary



## Stephen L Smith (May 5, 2019)

I was wondering if anyone on the PB has much fellowship with pastors trained at the Masters Seminary?

The reason I was asking is that I find in my country such fellowship can be both a blessng and a challange. We have some important things in common:

Calvinist theology
A common commitment to Biblical Inerrancy and evangelical theology. The Masters Seminary stands with Reformed theology in denouncing all forms of liberal theology, and weak views of scripture
A number of combined conferences in varies countries - eg,
Truth Of The Gospel conference in Sydney, Australia.

But I see many challanges:

The impact of dispensationalism in general on theology and especially how it unermines Calvinistic theology
Antinomianism
A weak view of the Regulative Principle of Worship
Some in my country allow woman participation in worship
In my country, many TMS pasters prefer to associate with Arminian dispensationalists than with Reformed Churches.
One of the reasons I ask is that TMS has now sent many graduates to many countries inluding my own. When we fellowship with them I think "they have so much like us" but also "they have real things not in cmmon with us"

Thoughts?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (May 5, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I was wondering if anyone on the PB has much fellowship with pastors trained at the Masters Seminary?
> 
> The reason I was asking is that I find in my country such fellowship can be both a blessng and a challange. We have some important things in common:
> 
> ...


My pastor completed his Doctorate in Expository Preaching at The Master’s Seminary. He holds to the 1689.


----------



## J.L. Allen (May 5, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I was wondering if anyone on the PB has much fellowship with pastors trained at the Masters Seminary?
> 
> The reason I was asking is that I find in my country such fellowship can be both a blessng and a challange. We have some important things in common:
> 
> ...


My wife has had many years of experience of mingling with the Masters world. She went to the college for her undergraduate degree. 

There are godly men who come out of the seminary and engage with the world by presenting the gospel. Many lives have been blessed by the seminary. They are fighting the tide of the modern iteration of the liberal/modernist. All this is despite the error of Dispensationalism.

They are brothers and we must be charitable. We can gently point them to the Scripture and win over in time while guarding our own hearts lest we fall in error. And as was mentioned, there are guys who come out rejecting Dispensationalism.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## earl40 (May 5, 2019)

I guess the answer depends on what fellowship you are asking about. Personally I have vowed in my heart to not partake in communion in congregations that have a misunderstanding of the sacraments, so that fellowship is out. Of course so far as fellowship with common causes I have learned to be much more charitable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 7, 2019)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> My pastor completed his Doctorate in Expository Preaching at The Master’s Seminary. He holds to the 1689.


Did he subscribe to the 1689 Confession after he studied at Masters?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (May 7, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Did he subscribe to the 1689 Confession after he studied at Masters?


Yes. Before and after.

The program was focused specifically on preaching, not theology per se. They weren’t taught any dispensational theology as far as I know.

Obviously it would be different if one did a broader program, but this was a preaching focused PhD for active pastors. He studied at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary prior to Master’s.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## psycheives (May 8, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I was wondering if anyone on the PB has much fellowship with pastors trained at the Masters Seminary?
> 
> One of the reasons I ask is that TMS has now sent many graduates to many countries inluding my own. When we fellowship with them I think "they have so much like us" but also "they have real things not in cmmon with us" Thoughts?



One of my best friends just graduated from Masters and is a youth pastor. But I had to flee the MacArthurite churches due to a number of differences and could not go back unless it was a last resort:

1) I came to believe there are over 20 beliefs on which the MacArthurites and the Reformed _tend _to differ/emphasize differently: Lordship Salvation; doctrine of infant salvation; children treated as unbelievers; sacraments/means of grace/baptism/lord's supper; RPW/worship; Detailed Confessions vs simple Statement of Faith; They reject our Confessions/Catechism; views/value of history; Covenant Theology vs Dispensational; Law-Gospel; sanctification; biblical counseling vs nouthetic counseling; Sabbath/10 commandments/moral law of God; end times; images of Christ; assurance of salvation; preach the gospel; head coverings; leadership/church gov/non-denom; power/one-man-show/refusal of accountability; legalism in anti-alcohol; legalism in dancing at weddings; Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism that reduces the essentials to a minimum rather than a comprehensive Confession; over-emphasis on a full commitment to Christ being possible esp early in life; 3 uses of the law; indwelling of OT saints; Trinity issues like eternal sonship (MacArthur taught it to everyone but quietly discarded it himself but didn't publicly retract, so many still hold it); church discipline issues; treatment of women; women must obey ALL men not just husband; divorce/remarriage; wrong use of Greek/Strongs to commit root word fallacies everywhere; order of salvation (many use the Arminian ordo); and more. If you compare the notes in the MacArthur study bible to Sproul's RSB, you'll notice soooo many differences. My MacArthur notes are all red. Even basic interpretations are speculative, illogical in their own setting/context and simply wrong.

Some may disagree, but I see MacArthurism as a hodge-podge outworking of one man's theological education: Baptist, Dispensational, Methodist, Fundamentalist and lastly slap on the 5 points and the influence of Sproul. I see aspects of all these systems living to different degrees (and sometimes at different times) in MacArthur's theology.
​2) Great gospel messages some weeks but other weeks were seriously teaching legalism: "If you don't love your neighbor and coworkers more than your wife and children, you're not a Christian." "If you don't clean up your act and aren't merciful, God won't save/justify you."
3) I was told most Masters profs aren't as accurate as MacArthur and with this, most are 4 pointers. This has also been my experience as well. Masters grads I know tend to be 4 pointers who actually pick on MacArthur for being 5 points.
4) Even though I was one of the most active members, I was never really welcome because I was Reformed and not baptist. I was always treated as an outsider, even though I volunteered as much as possible.
5) My pastor criticized the Reformed and Calvin from the pulpit and I had to respectfully sit and not throw stones. After service, when whipped out Calvin on Logos on my phone, he saw his error but wasn't the type to retract publicly. Ughhh  Too many of those guys in all circles.

That said, I try to be nice.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Pilgrim (May 8, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I was wondering if anyone on the PB has much fellowship with pastors trained at the Masters Seminary?
> 
> The reason I was asking is that I find in my country such fellowship can be both a blessng and a challange. We have some important things in common:
> 
> ...



I guess this depends on what you mean by "fellowship." Is it just hanging out, or what? What do you mean by "association?" Having a conference together, exchanging pulpits, or what?

How about rejoicing on the things you can agree on and sharpening iron on the things you don't, on those occasions that you do come across each other.

If we're put off by a weak view of the RPW, then fellowship with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) should be limited since the typical PCA congregation nowadays is probably no better than Grace and often worse. Many of them also allow women participation in worship, including some who say women preaching is ok, so long as its under the authority of the elders. Many and perhaps most are effectively anti-sabbatarian, which is one thing that I suppose you mean by antinomian. And that church is one that the RCNZ has formal relations with, if I'm not mistaken.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (May 8, 2019)

psycheives said:


> One of my best friends just graduated from Masters and is a youth pastor. But I had to flee the MacArthurite churches due to a number of differences and could not go back unless it was a last resort:
> 
> 1) I came to believe there are over 20 beliefs on which the MacArthurites and the Reformed _tend _to differ/emphasize differently: Lordship Salvation; doctrine of infant salvation; children treated as unbelievers; sacraments/means of grace/baptism/lord's supper; RPW/worship; Detailed Confessions vs simple Statement of Faith; They reject our Confessions/Catechism; views/value of history; Covenant Theology vs Dispensational; Law-Gospel; sanctification; biblical counseling vs nouthetic counseling; Sabbath/10 commandments/moral law of God; end times; images of Christ; assurance of salvation; preach the gospel; head coverings; leadership/church gov/non-denom; power/one-man-show/refusal of accountability; legalism in anti-alcohol; legalism in dancing at weddings; Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism that reduces the essentials to a minimum rather than a comprehensive Confession; over-emphasis on a full commitment to Christ being possible esp early in life; 3 uses of the law; indwelling of OT saints; Trinity issues like eternal sonship (MacArthur taught it to everyone but quietly discarded it himself but didn't publicly retract, so many still hold it); church discipline issues; treatment of women; women must obey ALL men not just husband; divorce/remarriage; wrong use of Greek/Strongs to commit root word fallacies everywhere; order of salvation (many use the Arminian ordo); and more. If you compare the notes in the MacArthur study bible to Sproul's RSB, you'll notice soooo many differences. My MacArthur notes are all red. Even basic interpretations are speculative, illogical in their own setting/context and simply wrong.
> 
> ...


Those are some awfully wide brush strokes you are painting with.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (May 8, 2019)

psycheives said:


> One of my best friends just graduated from Masters and is a youth pastor. But I had to flee the MacArthurite churches due to a number of differences and could not go back unless it was a last resort:
> 
> 1) I came to believe there are over 20 beliefs on which the MacArthurites and the Reformed _tend _to differ/emphasize differently: Lordship Salvation; doctrine of infant salvation; children treated as unbelievers; sacraments/means of grace/baptism/lord's supper; RPW/worship; Detailed Confessions vs simple Statement of Faith; They reject our Confessions/Catechism; views/value of history; Covenant Theology vs Dispensational; Law-Gospel; sanctification; biblical counseling vs nouthetic counseling; Sabbath/10 commandments/moral law of God; end times; images of Christ; assurance of salvation; preach the gospel; head coverings; leadership/church gov/non-denom; power/one-man-show/refusal of accountability; legalism in anti-alcohol; legalism in dancing at weddings; Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism that reduces the essentials to a minimum rather than a comprehensive Confession; over-emphasis on a full commitment to Christ being possible esp early in life; 3 uses of the law; indwelling of OT saints; Trinity issues like eternal sonship (MacArthur taught it to everyone but quietly discarded it himself but didn't publicly retract, so many still hold it); church discipline issues; treatment of women; women must obey ALL men not just husband; divorce/remarriage; wrong use of Greek/Strongs to commit root word fallacies everywhere; order of salvation (many use the Arminian ordo); and more. If you compare the notes in the MacArthur study bible to Sproul's RSB, you'll notice soooo many differences. My MacArthur notes are all red. Even basic interpretations are speculative, illogical in their own setting/context and simply wrong.
> 
> ...



I don't remember where he wrote it up (years ago), but MacArthur did publicly retract his eternal Sonship views.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (May 8, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I was wondering if anyone on the PB has much fellowship with pastors trained at the Masters Seminary?
> 
> The reason I was asking is that I find in my country such fellowship can be both a blessng and a challange. We have some important things in common:
> 
> ...



MacArthur is not a Calvinist, strictly speaking. He has a Reformed soteriology, but he doesn't accept the whole Reformed theological package, so to speak. Also, he considers himself to be a "leaky dispensationalist" (his term). He believes that there is a difference between Israel and the church, but he rejects the division into the (typically) seven dispensations.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 8, 2019)

We've discussed MacArthur before, but you've made a number of interesting statements here that I'd like to discuss further, if you don't mind.

I'm no MacArthurite and hold no brief for that school of thought, having some significant differences with it myself. But I am interested in seeing some of this unpacked, especially since some of it runs counter to some impressions and experiences that I and others have had with products of TMS.



psycheives said:


> One of my best friends just graduated from Masters and is a youth pastor. But I had to flee the MacArthurite churches due to a number of differences and could not go back unless it was a last resort:



Out of curiosity, were you in the MacArthurite churches before, during or after your time at WSCAL? The reason I ask is that I'd think anyone in the WSCAL orbit would flee MacArthurism at the earliest opportunity.

I'll add for the benefit of onlookers that I don't think that the term MacArthurism or MacArthurite is necessarily pejorative or insulting. At least insofar as I use the term, its to refer to the beliefs and practices promulgated by Grace Church, the MacArthur Study Bible, etc. Their recent theology book is essentially a statement of "MacArthurism" and one that largely doesn't even bother to consider other views. "MacArthurism" includes their distinctive concoction of Calvinistic soteriology, their view of "futuristic premil," elder rule with minimal or no congregational input or involvement, strict cessationism, insistence on six day creationism, and so on. They also have their own hymnal. (Some will deny the applicability of this, but this has traditionally been a mark of denominationalism. I'm not arguing that they are a denomination, but that their circle has taken on the trappings of it, although informally.)

Lest it get buried way down in this post, I'll add this now:

While they are baptistic on the issue of the mode and subjects of baptism, their distinctive practice of elder rule (as opposed to elder-led congregationalism) rules them out as being Baptist, In my humble opinion. It is actually taken from Brethrenism, and MacArthur touts a book by a (Plymouth) Brethren author as basically being the source for his ecclesiology. Insisting that they are "Baptist" is tantamount to insisting that any congregation that is Calvinistic and is pedobaptist is Presbyterian regardless of their polity. Independency is not the same as congregationalism.



psycheives said:


> 1) I came to believe there are over 20 beliefs on which the MacArthurites and the Reformed _tend _to differ/emphasize differently:
> 
> Lordship Salvation;



I'm not sure why J.M. Boice and perhaps A.W. Pink and others (not to mention Piper, who is sort of a different case with the Daniel Fuller influence) are seemingly given a pass on this by Reformed people who tout the criticism of MacArthur by Horton et al. Their views on this are hardly distinguishable from MacArthur's. (I could get a lot more specific, but this post is long enough as it is.)

Regardless, I think Boice and even MacArthur are closer to the Reformed confessions than MacArthur's opponents and even Tullian Tchvidjian, who some in "confessional" Reformed churches and seminaries defended when that sanctification controversy was ongoing a number of years ago.



> doctrine of infant salvation;



Are you referring to the idea that all infants dying in infancy go to heaven? A whole lot of NAPARC pastors flunk as well, if this is the test. So does Warfield. Or do you perceive some differences in MacArthur's views and those like Warfield? Or are some grads of TMS different in some way from MacArthur on this?



> children treated as unbelievers;



As far as I know, they aren't any different than baptistic people generally here.

But sometimes the testimonies at the baptisms I've seen at Grace Church have cause me to wonder. Many of them seem to be "I was brought up in a Christian home but I fell into sin, therefore I wasn't really a believer" I'm sure that many of them really weren't believers. But it makes me wonder if there is no room for the bruised reed in their theology and practice. You don't have to subscribe to the Carnal Christian error to see that there are believers who fall into a season of sin but who the Lord brings back to himself without them being considered to be lost.

Again, I'm referring to what I've seen and heard of Grace Church and maybe some of the things you've encountered are different.



> sacraments/means of grace/baptism/lord's supper;



As far as I know, they aren't any different than most baptistic people here either, especially those who aren't 1689ers. Many who subscribe to the 1689 do hold that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace. But I don't know how baptism as a means of grace would work in a baptistic schema without it ending up as some sort of converting ordinance and thus evidence of a "romanizing" tendency as weird as that may sound. Do you know of any 1689ers or others who see baptism of a means of grace? If so, what does that mean?



> RPW/worship;



The issue of the sacraments aside, as far as I know, they are no worse here than many Presbyterian and NAPARC churches. But I'm basing this solely on services of Grace Community Church that I've viewed. With one exception, I don't think I've attended or visited any church where a TMS grad is an elder. Perhaps it is more typically "contemporary" and evanjellyfish elsewhere.



> Detailed Confessions vs simple Statement of Faith;



This is one of the things that really piques my interest. I assume you aren't referring to the statement of faith of Grace Community Church which is also the statement of faith of TMS and is also found in the back of the MacArthur Study Bible. Whatever its deficiencies, it is not a simple and minimalist statement of faith. I think it's probably more detailed than almost every other statement with the exception of the Reformed confessions.

So I'm assuming you refer to other "MacArthurite" churches that have a minimalist statement of faith of only a few paragraphs. That's a bit surprising unless these are churches that weren't MacArthurite until recently and are perhaps in the process of "reforming" or whatever. I'd think nailing down some of their distinctives in a statement of faith would be on the agenda of a MacArthurite pastor-teacher, assuming they agree with the Grace/TMS statement and aren't off the reservation on one or more issues.




> They reject our Confessions/Catechism;



That goes without saying. But maybe not with some novices who think you can hold to the detailed Grace/TMS statement and also hold to the 1689 or even WCF. But those who think that tend to be some sort of cage stager who aren't ministers.



> views/value of history;



I assume you refer to their views of church history and tradition. They are biblicists, the Reformed are not, John Frame notwithstanding. In the intro of the recently published MacArthur/TMS theology text, they state that their system is biblicist rather than Reformed. In the midst of the "Calvinists should be Premil" debate, Phil Johnson's response to confessionalist critics was basically "He isn't one of you."



> Law-Gospel



Since "Sabbath/10 Commandments/moral law of God" is referred to separately, is "Law-Gospel" a reference to WSCAL's teaching on the law-gospel distinction? If so, how common is that in the broader NAPARC world today?




> ; sanctification;



This would appear to be related to the Lordship issue as well as the Third Use of the Law. Or is it also something else?



> biblical counseling vs nouthetic counseling;



Is this CCEF vs Jay Adams, or something else? If so, is one of these "not Reformed" in your view? As far as I know, MacArthur/Grace/TMS are basically devotees of Adams.



> Sabbath/10 commandments/moral law of God;



This is a clear one since MacArthur(ism) doesn't believe the believer is under the law as a code in the church age. But as a practical matter, neither do many if not most who are members of NAPARC churches. A lot of pastors never seem to preach it regardless of what they professed before the Presbytery. And I don't think that's down to MacArthur's influence since many of the Presbyterians I'm referring to are practically MacArthur haters. It has as much if not more to do with popular Presbyterian ministries who haven't wanted to "major on the minors" and thus haven't taught their distinctive views.



> end times;



This one is obvious, especially his insistence on pre-trib rapturism. (That said, some form of "Zionism" has a long history within Reformed/Presbyterian ranks broadly speaking, whether among premils or postmils, although it is certainly at a lower ebb today than perhaps any time in the past 150 years or more.)



> images of Christ;



Unless you completely take the PCA out of it, in my experience, there are more elders who think you're an extremist for being against images of Christ than there are who are completely opposed to it. And that's the only kind of Reformed church near to a great many people.

I know you said this was a list of where the Reformed *tend* to differ with MacArthur. I think it may be more accurate to say that some of these issues are where Reformed people as seen in the confessions have historically differed from him or where they *should* differ from him. But the reality today is that on some of these issues, it is a minority, and sometimes even a small one, that holds to the *real* Reformed view.



> assurance of salvation;



Is this largely a reference to the outworking of the Lordship Salvation teaching? Do you find that they are characterized by a navel gazing introspectionism and continual doubting about whether or not they have enough fruit to give evidence of their salvation?



> preach the gospel;



What does this mean? Perhaps that they tend to harp on pet issues and criticize others and don't preach the gospel often enough?



> head coverings;



Since head covering is not generally a practice associated with MacArthurism, is it your contention that Reformed people *tend* to practice it?



> leadership/church gov/non-denom;



Neither is their view of leadership and especially church government Baptist, as I noted at the beginning.




> power/one-man-show/refusal of accountability;



Their elder-rule teaching is *supposed* to be the antithesis of one-man-show.

Elder rule in an independent congregation is indeed a polity in which the leadership is not accountable to anyone except for themselves, humanly speaking. The congregation has no recourse whatsoever except to leave when elders go astray and insist on maintaining that direction.

I'm more than half inclined to say that a better case can be made from the Scriptures for episcopacy than for elder rule where the congregation has no say whatsoever in choosing their elders, church discipline, etc.




> legalism in anti-alcohol; legalism in dancing at weddings;



I wonder what the Puritans as well as someone like J.C. Ryle thought about dancing at weddings. Ryle seems to have clearly opposed it in other contexts. (Some may wish to write Ryle out of the Reformed camp since he rather clearly disavowed limited atonement. Regardless, his books like "Holiness" and "Practical Religion" continue to be cited as classics on Christian living by some.)



> Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism that reduces the essentials to a minimum rather than a comprehensive Confession;



I actually see this as being somewhat the reverse, as do many if not most others. They've got their own distinctives, some of which consists on majoring on the minors or dogmatic assertions on debatable matters, such as pre-trib, (to the point that OT saints and "tribulation saints" aren't part of the church, apparently not even in glory) alcohol, elder rule, 6x24, and probably some other things I'm forgetting. They've got their own seminary, their own hymn book, their own theology text, their own church planting org, their own confession, etc. because no other one agreed with them on issues that they think are very important. Some of their own fans are livid that they haven't separated from Mohler, Duncan and Dever over wokism. But MacArthur apparently had his fill of separatist fundamentalism at BJU.

But maybe there are TMS grads who are more evanjellyfish. Francis Chan is a TMS grad, after all, although I trust not a typical one.



> over-emphasis on a full commitment to Christ being possible esp early in life;



I do think they've been unclear at best on this at times, leaving the door open for their so-called "free grace" critics.



> 3 uses of the law;



I'll skip this since I've referred to it earlier except to say that it isn't emphasized in many Reformed churches either.



> indwelling of OT saints;



The generally non-dispensational SBTS can be indicted on this as well. See James Hamilton's book on it, which is by his admission similar to Ryrie's book on the Holy Spirit.



> Trinity issues like eternal sonship (MacArthur taught it to everyone but quietly discarded it himself but didn't publicly retract, so many still hold it);



MacArthur did publicly retract it, and it was on one of his websites for many years. (I haven't checked whether or not it is still up there.) However, I'm told that the Study Bible, and the Hebrews commentary teach it, and they haven't been corrected. (I don't have the Hebrews commentary and rarely consult the Study Bible anymore.) In the same vein, they disavowed part of "Hard to Believe" when their no-Lordship opponents correctly pointed out a passage that appears to teach works salvation. They blamed it on the editor, who wasn't Phil Johnson for once. But to my knowledge the book hasn't been revised.

Notably, he asked Mark Jones (I think it was) to address the Trinity issue at the Shepherd's Conference a few years ago in the midst of the Trinity/subordination controversy.



> church discipline issues;



This is in part related to their practice of elder rule. What kinds of other issues can you think of? Heavy handed use of church discipline? Discipline for things that aren't sin? Without some examples, this is difficult to evaluate other than taking issue with their procedure.



> treatment of women; women must obey ALL men not just husband;



Is there a book or sermon in which obedience to all men is taught?

Is there a particular ministry that teaches it if you can't find a specific message? (Time permitting, I'll go looking for it if there is one that you know that definitely teaches this.)



> divorce/remarriage;



What are the issues here? As far as I know, MacArthur basically teaches what the WCF teaches on the issue, which is that it is permitted for adultery and abandonment. If some TMS grads are teaching the permanence view of marriage or something, can it really be said to be MacArthurism? To me, that's like saying a TMS grad who is amillennial is MacArthurite nonetheless.



> order of salvation (many use the Arminian ordo);



As with the statement about minimalist statements of faith, this one is a bit puzzling. If so, it seems to me that they aren't being good MacArthurists.



> Some may disagree, but I see MacArthurism as a hodge-podge outworking of one man's theological education: Baptist, Dispensational, Methodist, Fundamentalist and lastly slap on the 5 points and the influence of Sproul. I see aspects of all these systems living to different degrees (and sometimes at different times) in MacArthur's theology.



A.W. Pink was an influence before he was associated with Sproul. (I'm not sure that Pink's disconnection from church life was widely known prior to the publication of Murray's biography of him.) 

What Methodist influence do you see beyond his undergraduate degree at Azuza Pacific?



> 2) Great gospel messages some weeks but other weeks were seriously teaching legalism: "If you don't love your neighbor and coworkers more than your wife and children, you're not a Christian." "If you don't clean up your act and aren't merciful, God won't save/justify you."



The first one is bunk. It's actually the kind of thing I'd expect from a SJW, although perhaps in a different context and with a different application.

Do they really say that "If you don't do x then God won't save/justify you" or do they say it is evidence that you aren't saved?

I don't think I've seen that from MacArthur specifically, although up to a point the fruit of a ministry and school can be judged by its progeny if there is a pattern.



> 3) I was told most Masters profs aren't as accurate as MacArthur and with this, most are 4 pointers. This has also been my experience as well. Masters grads I know tend to be 4 pointers who actually pick on MacArthur for being 5 points.



I don't think this is the case now. But some were 4 pointers in the beginning of TMS, with some having come from places like Liberty and Talbot at a time in which much of the early faculty of Liberty was 4 point rather than the rabid anti-Calvinism that it degenerated to in the Caner days. I've heard that MacArthur himself wasn't totally sold on limited atonement until the mid-90s whereas TMS began in the mid-80s. But the younger guys like Vlach, Waymeyer, Riccardi, and others that I know of are all 5 pointers. 

I think your experience here differs from many (most?) others, and this is one reason why I've responded at some length. To the contrary, most of the ones I've known are 5 pointers who aren't interested in any nuance at all when it comes to particular redemption. They'd look askance at more nuanced views like those of Shedd and Dabney and say that it is weak if they'd accept them as 5 pointers at all. And from my admittedly quick glance at their "Biblical Doctrine" it also doesn't admit of any nuance. (Compare Culver, who is heavily influenced by Shedd.)

The only pastor I know of who could be considered in the MacArthur orbit who is a 4 pointer is Jack Hughes, who used to be the pastor at Calvary Bible Church in Burbank, which was started by John MacArthur's father. He left there a number of years ago and I don't know what is taught there now. And Hughes went to.....wait for it...... WSCAL!!! for his D.Min. in expository preaching (Someone must have left the back door open.  )

I'm not saying that there aren't any four pointers who are TMS grads and that are even recent ones. But I'd be surprised to learn that it is very common or that there are more of them than there are 5 pointers.




> 4) Even though I was one of the most active members, I was never really welcome because I was Reformed and not baptist. I was always treated as an outsider, even though I volunteered as much as possible.



Had you previously been "dunked" or did they let you join without it? There is a MacArthur Q&A where, If I recall correctly, he says they don't absolutely insist in believers baptism by immersion as a prerequisite for membership. (This is another example of them not being Baptist (at least not what Baptist has historically meant in the USA) and being closer to Ev Free or the Open Brethren.)

This "outsider" feeling or status cuts both ways. Several years ago, an OPC pastor told me he was on the verge of suspending a couple from the Lord's Supper because they wouldn't present their young child for baptism. (They eventually did.) Another PCA pastor I know of (a Banner of Truth fan and not a Federal Visionist, and whose name many here would recognize) has said that he tells interested Baptists not to join and refers them to Baptist churches instead.



> 5) My pastor criticized the Reformed and Calvin from the pulpit and I had to respectfully sit and not throw stones. After service, when whipped out Calvin on Logos on my phone, he saw his error but wasn't the type to retract publicly. Ughhh  Too many of those guys in all circles.



That is for sure. Depending on what the issue is, it may or may not be necessary to issue a retraction or there may not be a need to be a retraction from the pulpit the next time he speaks. Sometimes, it's enough if he doesn't repeat the illustration or assertion.

One thing that I'm surprised wasn't mentioned is MacArthur's view on the conversion of elders' children where he seems to take the Doug Wilson view of it (that they must be elect rather than obedient) unless this view is not widely held outside of Grace Church. The note in the Study Bible is particularly bad, and practically reads like something that no Calvinistic person should say--that if an elder can't save his children, how can he convert others? (Hopefully it's not quite that bad, but that's basically what has stuck with me. I don't have it handy, so can't quote it right now.) I've heard of elders at Grace Church resigning because their adult children who have been out of the house for many years have recently proved to be unsaved.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## jw (May 8, 2019)

The resolution is to involve bacon. Lots of bacon.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pilgrim (May 8, 2019)

bookslover said:


> MacArthur is not a Calvinist, strictly speaking. He has a Reformed soteriology, but he doesn't accept the whole Reformed theological package, so to speak. Also, he considers himself to be a "leaky dispensationalist" (his term). He believes that there is a difference between Israel and the church, but he rejects the division into the (typically) seven dispensations.



There is a Q&A (and not a really old one--it seemed to be in the midst of the Lordship controversy, if not somewhat afterwards) in which he does essentially affirm, however reluctantly, that there are several dispensations. But I think that he argues that the classic Dispensationalists went too far in creating a doctrinal system out of it.

I think his "leaky dispensationalism" comment has also been misunderstood. I don't think he means he's a progressive dispensationalist, for example, although a good many seem to have taken it that way. (I don't see much of that influence in his teaching at all, especially not the Bock/Blaising variety, although I think I recall him stating his admiration for the late Robert Saucy.) What he means is that dispensationalism only really has to do with ecclesiology and eschatology as opposed to Chafer and Walvoord, who thought that dispensationalism impacted soteriology and the other areas of systematic theology.

When it comes to eschatology specifically, I don't know that there's a whole lot of difference between him and the likes of Ryrie, Walvoord, and Pentecost.


----------



## psycheives (May 8, 2019)

bookslover said:


> I don't remember where he wrote it up (years ago), but MacArthur did publicly retract his eternal Sonship views.



Would love to see it if u can find one. I looked around and asked but no one I asked knew of any public retraction. If I recall right, there is even a transcribed QA where someone asked MacArthur about no public retraction and so asked him if he actually retracted. Also, last we checked, what was believed to be an endorsing statement was still posted publicly - many years after his retraction.


----------



## bookslover (May 8, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> I think his "leaky dispensationalism" comment has also been misunderstood. I don't think he means he's a progressive dispensationalist, for example, although a good many seem to have taken it that way. (I don't see much of that influence in his teaching at all, especially not the Bock/Blaising variety, although I think I recall him stating his admiration for the late Robert Saucy.) What he means is that dispensationalism only really has to do with ecclesiology and eschatology as opposed to Chafer and Walvoord, who thought that dispensationalism impacted soteriology and the other areas of systematic theology.



Correct. He was calling himself a "leaky dispensationalist" long before the rise of progressive dispensationalism, if I recall correctly. I think he did admire Saucy, as he studied under him when he was a student at Talbot in the early '60s. I studied under Dr. Saucy as well, about 30 years after MacArthur did. A very gracious man.


----------



## psycheives (May 8, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> Out of curiosity, were you in the MacArthurite churches before, during or after your time at WSCAL? The reason I ask is that I'd think anyone in the WSCAL orbit would flee MacArthurism at the earliest opportunity.



Woah!!! A book! I might have to just answer a few for time's sake. If I miss one that you really want answered, msg me again, ok? Went to MacArthurite churches before I even knew WSC existed. 



Pilgrim said:


> I'll add for the benefit of onlookers that I don't think that the term MacArthurism or MacArthurite is necessarily pejorative or insulting.



Agreed. One of my old pastors called his church MacArthurites. It's a nice easy way to differentiate the exact unique theology one holds. 



Pilgrim said:


> I'm not sure why J.M. Boice and perhaps A.W. Pink and others (not to mention Piper, who is sort of a different case with the Daniel Fuller influence) are seemingly given a pass on this by Reformed people who tout the criticism of MacArthur by Horton et al. Their views on this are hardly distinguishable from MacArthur's.



Maybe because we see more difference between MacArthur and Piper than others who see more similarities? A few things to note: Piper does not have MacArthur's emphasis on Lordship Salvation. Piper speaks more positively of the Reformed tradition and points away from himself to them. I was told that 30-60% of WSC students (depending upon the year) used to be sent to WSC by Piper. From my experience, I heard Piper emphasize a lot more dependence on the HS/grace in sanctification. Piper's teachings actually led me way from MacArthur. I'm with you on seeing major problems with Tullian.



Pilgrim said:


> Are you referring to the idea that all infants dying in infancy go to heaven?



No. MacArthur's Safe In The Arms book seems problematic.



Pilgrim said:


> Do you know of any 1689ers or others who see baptism of a means of grace? If so, what does that mean?



James White does a great series on this. He's actually the first one I ever listened to who convinced me the sacraments were a means of grace.



Pilgrim said:


> is "Law-Gospel" a reference to WSCAL's teaching on the law-gospel distinction?



No, not the WSC view. As my posts online demonstrate, I am concerned with the radical antinomian Law-Gospel antithesis of Gerhard Forde that kills "third use of the law" that Rod Rosenbladt taught to Tullian and Michael Horton, etc.



Pilgrim said:


> Is this CCEF vs Jay Adams, or something else? If so, is one of these "not Reformed" in your view? As far as I know, MacArthur/Grace/TMS are basically devotees of Adams.



I don't know how strong the lines/differences really are drawn, so tendencies/emphasis might be a better term. Adams was "the first" but he was considered to have gone too far and attributed too much to sin, not recognizing our fallen state. Nouthetic counseling takes a better stance and the MacArthurites I know aim for NANC/ACBC teachings - this also tends toward seeing concerns to be the result of sin but not as strong as Adams. A good change. But medication tend to be frowned upon quite strongly; pressuring people to avoid pills. The Reformed have generally moved one more step further from Adams/NANC to CCEF. These writings tend to do a much better job considering effects of our fallen state and not blaming everything on sin. This view would be the most open to medication. One area you really notice the differences is in dealing with depression. Of course, I'm sure MANY MacArthurites use CCEF materials and many Reformed use Adams/Nouthetic. But the tendency still is quite noticable.



Pilgrim said:


> Unless you completely take the PCA out of it, in my experience, there are more elders who think you're an extremist for being against images of Christ than there are who are completely opposed to it. And that's the only kind of Reformed church near to a great many people.



Well, I'm in the URC and we don't use images to teach even the kids. Also the URC and OPC ministers I know are anti-images. Even the FB groups tend to be anti-images. MacArthur said something like a statute of Jesus/or his head would be ok.



Pilgrim said:


> Since head covering is not generally a practice associated with MacArthurism, is it your contention that Reformed people *tend* to practice it?



No. Even the Reformed tend not to practice it. Only that I've never heard of it in MacArthurite churches. So, if you believe it, you'll find it among some Reformed churches, such as RPCNA, some URC, etc.



Pilgrim said:


> The generally non-dispensational SBTS can be indicted on this as well. See James Hamilton's book on it, which is by his admission similar to Ryrie's book on the Holy Spirit.



I'm a very strong critic of Hamilton's book and his atrocious and slanderous claim that JI Packer denied indwelling in the OT based on "Packer never said he believed it, so he MUST have rejected it."



Pilgrim said:


> MacArthur did publicly retract it, and it was on one of his websites for many years.



Really would love to see this. Please find it. 



Pilgrim said:


> What Methodist influence do you see beyond his undergraduate degree at Azuza Pacific?



Sanctification. Esp his emphasis on full commitment.



Pilgrim said:


> The first one is bunk. It's actually the kind of thing I'd expect from a SJW, although perhaps in a different context and with a different application. Do they really say that "If you don't do x then God won't save/justify you" or do they say it is evidence that you aren't saved? I don't think I've seen that from MacArthur specifically, although up to a point the fruit of a ministry and school can be judged by its progeny if there is a pattern.



Yes, they really do that in that order. If it was evidence, I wouldn't object. I see so many statements out of MacArthur/MacArthurites that sound like this. Same with other Lordship Salvation guys like Paul Walker and David Platt. Youtube/google these if you're curious. This sort of language is also all over in the MacStudyBible. I'm now using the 2010 ESV version.



Pilgrim said:


> Had you previously been "dunked" or did they let you join without it?



I was baptized previously as an adult by a pastor from Talbot in a non-denom Calvinistic church. I gotta run now but thanks for the conversation!


----------



## Pilgrim (May 8, 2019)

psycheives said:


> Would love to see it if u can find one. I looked around and asked but no one I asked knew of any public retraction. If I recall right, there is even a transcribed QA where someone asked MacArthur about no public retraction and so asked him if he actually retracted. Also, last we checked, what was believed to be an endorsing statement was still posted publicly - many years after his retraction.



Here it is: https://www.gty.org/library/Articles/A235/Reexamining-the-Eternal-Sonship-of-Christ


----------



## psycheives (May 8, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> Here it is: https://www.gty.org/library/Articles/A235/Reexamining-the-Eternal-Sonship-of-Christ



Thank you very much, Chris. Glad to see a public retraction. I remember many strongly criticizing him for spreading this through FIRE and then not publicly retracting his teaching - It seems this was published in 2001, many years after he had discarded the teaching?


----------



## Pilgrim (May 8, 2019)

psycheives said:


> Thank you very much, Chris. Glad to see a public retraction. I remember many strongly criticizing him for spreading this through FIRE and then not publicly retracting his teaching - It seems this was published in 2001, many years after he had discarded the teaching?



I don't know when he discarded the teaching. I wasn't aware that he had published the retraction in a journal and had assumed that it was simply a statement that he had issued. I'm pretty sure it's been posted online since at least 2001. 

It's interesting that it was published in the JBMW considering the firestorm that later erupted over CBMW's teaching on the Trinity. (I don't know whether or not the teaching of Ware et al is the official teaching of CBMW, but it is closely associated with the recent leadership regardless.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 8, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> If we're put off by a weak view of the RPW, then fellowship with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) should be limited since the typical PCA congregation nowadays is probably no better than Grace and often worse. Many of them also allow women participation in worship, including some who say women preaching is ok, so long as its under the authority of the elders. Many and perhaps most are effectively anti-sabbatarian, which is one thing that I suppose you mean by antinomian. And that church is one that the RCNZ has formal relations with, if I'm not mistaken.


By RCNZ I assume you mean the Reformed Churches of New Zealand. No they do not have formal relations with the PCA. They do have a full sister church relationship with the OPC and the URCNA.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Username3000 (May 9, 2019)

What a bunk accusation against Paul Washer, that he puts obedience before justification. Utter, unbelievable nonsense. It grieves me to see a faithful brother slandered like that. Actually, it makes me sick. 

Not only that, such an egregious misrepresentation undercuts the rest of your comments in this thread. If you are so misinformed about what Paul Washer teaches—and that’s a gracious assumption on my part—and yet make that kind of accusation, then I can’t trust any of your other assessments.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 9, 2019)

Hello Psyche,

I found many of your comments informative, and help me understand when I discuss theology with TMS Graduates in my country, why they sometimes misunderstand even basic Reformed theology.

I know others have made responses to your comments but I have picked a few of your comments to interact with:


psycheives said:


> Lordship Salvation


When MacArthur wrote his book "Gospel according to Jesus" then "Faith works", he said he was defending the Reformed doctrine of Perseverance of the saints and he considered himself 'a little closer' to Reformed theology.


psycheives said:


> RPW/worship


Yes, this is an area that particularly concerns me about TMS pastors (ie, trained at the Masters Seminary). Macarthur wrote a book on worship (recently revised). He paid lipservice to the RPW but I fear the generation following MacArthur will pay even less lip service to the RPW.


psycheives said:


> value of history


Are you saying they pay little attention to historical theology ?


psycheives said:


> Covenant Theology


This is a big one. I recently said to a TMS pastor living close to me that his Calvinistic theology had a weak foundation as it was not based on covenant theology. He did not understand the relationship between the Pactum Salutis, Historia Salutis and the Ordo Salutis.

Interesting that you talk of TMS pastors having a weakened confessional theology; when I talked of the relationship between the Pactum Salutis, Historia Salutis and the Ordo Salutis, this pastor said I was 'guilty' of holding to a 'system of theology' rather than using the Bible itself!!


psycheives said:


> biblical counseling vs nouthetic counseling


I have found Martyn Lloyd-Jones to be one of the most helpful on this. He was an esteemed medical doctor as well as a gifted and wise pastor. Lloyd-Jones was very critical of Jay Adam's view of mental health. He would be happy, I think, with the approach of CCEF. One of Dr Lloyd-Jones classic lectures on the relationship between physical, mental, and spiritual health, was his 1974 Randall Short lecture for the British Christian Medical Fellowship Conference. It is still highly relevant today even if some medical views are a little dated. I also take minor issues with some of his theology, but they are minor. Part A https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons-online/itinerant-preaching/body-mind-and-spirit-part-a/ Part B https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons-online/itinerant-preaching/body-mind-and-spirit-part-b/
Many trained at the TMS make some of the mistakes Dr Lloyd-Jones mentions, unfortunately.


psycheives said:


> Greek/Strongs to commit root word fallacies everywhere


Are you saying they would not understand the exegetical fallacies Don Carson mentions? I thought TMS was committed to Biblical exegesis?


psycheives said:


> order of salvation (many use the Arminian ordo);


Does not the TMS teach the ordo salutus? As I said above I do acknowledge they deny covenant theology thus have a warped calvinistic theology. But I thought they taught the ordo salutus.


psycheives said:


> If you compare the notes in the MacArthur study bible to Sproul's RSB, you'll notice soooo many differences.


RC Sproul made a comment on this. He said that if you read the Reformed Study Bible it will take you safely to heaven. He said futher, if you read the MacArthur Study Bible it will take you safely to Purgatory

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## psycheives (May 10, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> When MacArthur wrote his book "Gospel according to Jesus" then "Faith works", he said he was defending the Reformed doctrine of Perseverance of the saints and he considered himself 'a little closer' to Reformed theology.



MacArthur's criticism of the stronger Dispensationalists was spot on and I applaud him for that. He did a great job seeing their error. However, it is my view (and the general view of those concerned with Lordship Salvation) that he swung in a different direction and made an error of his own. Some may see it as too harsh, but Michael Horton associated MacArthur's view with legalism in the direction of Rome and I must say that I also see a concern here. MacArthur seems to redefine faith to include obedience (not just repentance)/full commitment/full surrender, etc.



Stephen L Smith said:


> Are you saying they pay little attention to historical theology ?


 Again, my opinion, yes, MacArthurites (and just moderns in general) certainly seem to compared to many Reformed. Look at the very strong sense of history especially among the Dutch and Scottish Reformed - who are always warning about repeating historical errors. There are volumes on their history, historical theology and the Reformation. One example that concerned me was Masters Seminary's Mike Vlach's book were I understood him to affirm Covenant Theology began with the early church fathers in seed form. But he completely throws out their beliefs because "they were antisemitic" (which many would argue isn't even historically accurate). He says Dispensational began in the 1830s and goes with that system. He didn't see to weigh that history was strongly against this view.



Stephen L Smith said:


> He did not understand the relationship between the Pactum Salutis, Historia Salutis and the Ordo Salutis. ...this pastor said I was 'guilty' of holding to a 'system of theology' rather than using the Bible itself!!


 Yes, I hear that all the time too, but it's because they tend to be Biblicists. So, I should have added along with Historical Theology, that they tend to be weak in Systematic Theology. Yes, I have MacArthur's Biblical Doctrine book but I still think this is fair to say.

Thanks for the MLJones links! I'm totally interested in this subject - Biblical Counseling vs Nouthetic vs Adams.



Stephen L Smith said:


> Are you saying they would not understand the exegetical fallacies Don Carson mentions? I thought TMS was committed to Biblical exegesis?


 I can't speak of where MacArthur stands on this very day (I hope he learned in the last year), but absolutely not in his writings over the years. You can see him make this fallacy over and over again. In fact, when I hear a MacArthurite pull out the Greek, I now expect them to be making this fallacy. Carson's exact example with "agape" in Exegetical Fallacies is the very interpretation MacArthur makes. MacArthur changed "agape" to mean "God's highest love" and completely misinterprets passages using agape because of this. I just saw the most shocking interpretations the other day in his study bible in all of John 21. Compare MacAthur's version to Sproul's. First, he speculates the disciples were disobeying Christ - but that's not true. Then he says Jesus was testing Peter's love and demanding full commitment. Given the context, I find it impossible to see how MacArthur's interpretation even makes sense or could ever be true. So what? Jesus lowered his requirement from full commitment to a lesser love? The entire interpretation is so off based. Sproul's interpretation makes sense of the context and matches Calvin and Henry. Did MacArthur never read Calvin/Henry here? History would have saved him.



Stephen L Smith said:


> RC Sproul made a comment on this. He said that if you read the Reformed Study Bible it will take you safely to heaven. He said futher, if you read the MacArthur Study Bible it will take you safely to Purgatory


 hahaha... wait, really? I know he would have been joking but you know... I think there is truth to that if one interprets that in a specific way.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 10, 2019)

psycheives said:


> MacArthur's criticism of the stronger Dispensationalists was spot on and I applaud him for that. He did a great job seeing their error. However, it is my view (and the general view of those concerned with Lordship Salvation) that he swung in a different direction and made an error of his own. Some may see it as too harsh, but Michael Horton associated MacArthur's view with legalism in the direction of Rome and I must say that I also see a concern here. MacArthur seems to redefine faith to include obedience (not just repentance)/full commitment/full surrender, etc.


MacArthur was aware of some of these problems in his first edition of "The Gospel according to Jesus" and sought to correct them in later editions (1995 and 2008 ed from memory). In his follow up book "Faith works" he stated his chief goal was to defend the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. As the WCF says true believers will persevere to the end. This is different to the "eternal security of the believer" where one can keep on sinning yet still be saved. So I see MacArthur as aiming to defend the Reformed emphasis here. I guess part of the problem is that MacArthur has a dispensational, not Reformed, framework to work with here, hence the distortion? That is, as the WCF builds on doctrine from ch 1 through to the persevarance of the saints, it builds doctrine upon doctrine so you get the balanced statements. Macarthur clearly has a problem here.


psycheives said:


> Look at the very strong sense of history especially among the Dutch and Scottish Reformed


I was in a Reformed Church of New Zealand conference a few years ago. The subject was church polity in the Dutch Reformed tradition. I found it very helpful. One speaker - a real Dutchman - gave an excellent lecture on polity but said many of the best works on this were in Dutch, not yet translated into English. The cheeky Dutchman said we could overcme this 'problem' by learning the "language of the angels". My Scottish blood was aroused. During question time I explained that my beloved Dutch brethren had to understand that Scotland, not the Netherlands, was the 'land of the covenant'. It created a stir 

Seriously, it was good you mentioned the Dutch and the Scots, as I believe both traditions are fine examples of Reformed Christianity. I think those trained at TMS often are unaware, for example, that Bavincks Reformed Dogmatics is a fine combination of Exegetical Theology, Systematic theology, as well Historical Theology. Little wonder people say Bavinck is very balanced.


psycheives said:


> Yes, I hear that all the time too, but it's because they tend to be Biblicists.


Agreed. But it makes me wonder, as Biblicists, how they get important issues such as Biblical inerrancy or Divine Impassiblity right? Surely they have to borrow some Reformd theology here 


psycheives said:


> Thanks for the MLJones links! I'm totally interested in this subject - Biblical Counseling vs Nouthetic vs Adams.


Thats good because there needs to be balance here, especially difficult situations where people are hurting. I have seen stiuations where people with Aspergers Syndrome have gone to TMS trained astors for help. These TMS pastors (at least the ones I have seen, maybe it is not true of all) have looked on the 'odd ball' personality of those with Aspergers and thought it was sinful behaviour. When people with Aspergers have expressed fears about marriage (because of the problems that people with Aspergers can bring to a marriage) they were told their concerns were unscriptural. This troubles me greatly.

I am glad pastors like Dr Lloyd-Jones and now CCEF re more balanced and can generally help Christians with mental health issues.

Still, MacArthur has made strong links with godly Reformed pastors such as RC Sproul, and now Joel Beeke. So he must do some things right


----------



## nickipicki123 (May 11, 2019)

psycheives said:


> One of my best friends just graduated from Masters and is a youth pastor. But I had to flee the MacArthurite churches due to a number of differences and could not go back unless it was a last resort:
> 
> 1) I came to believe there are over 20 beliefs on which the MacArthurites and the Reformed _tend _to differ/emphasize differently: Lordship Salvation; doctrine of infant salvation; children treated as unbelievers; sacraments/means of grace/baptism/lord's supper; RPW/worship; Detailed Confessions vs simple Statement of Faith; They reject our Confessions/Catechism; views/value of history; Covenant Theology vs Dispensational; Law-Gospel; sanctification; biblical counseling vs nouthetic counseling; Sabbath/10 commandments/moral law of God; end times; images of Christ; assurance of salvation; preach the gospel; head coverings; leadership/church gov/non-denom; power/one-man-show/refusal of accountability; legalism in anti-alcohol; legalism in dancing at weddings; Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism that reduces the essentials to a minimum rather than a comprehensive Confession; over-emphasis on a full commitment to Christ being possible esp early in life; 3 uses of the law; indwelling of OT saints; Trinity issues like eternal sonship (MacArthur taught it to everyone but quietly discarded it himself but didn't publicly retract, so many still hold it); church discipline issues; treatment of women; women must obey ALL men not just husband; divorce/remarriage; wrong use of Greek/Strongs to commit root word fallacies everywhere; order of salvation (many use the Arminian ordo); and more. If you compare the notes in the MacArthur study bible to Sproul's RSB, you'll notice soooo many differences. My MacArthur notes are all red. Even basic interpretations are speculative, illogical in their own setting/context and simply wrong.
> 
> ...


Macathurites don't dance at weddings and expect women to obey all men?


----------



## psycheives (May 11, 2019)

nickipicki123 said:


> Macathurites don't dance at weddings and expect women to obey all men?



These are common views, yes. Masters Student Handbook says:

"Master’s prohibits students from dancing."

https://tmupublic.blob.core.windows.net/public-archive/Media/866369/2015-handbook-2.pdf 

Seminary students told me they could be kicked out/forfeit degree if caught dancing at wedding.


----------



## psycheives (May 11, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> MacArthur was aware of some of these problems in his first edition of "The Gospel according to Jesus" and sought to correct them in later editions (1995 and 2008 ed from memory). .... This is different to the "eternal security of the believer" where one can keep on sinning yet still be saved. So I see MacArthur as aiming to defend the Reformed emphasis here.



Yes, the Arminian Dispensational "Once Saved, Always Saved" is counter-biblical and he is correct for pointing this out. I know after GospelAJesus came out and Horton critiqued him, he revised the red version and tried to correct the error in his next book. Still, I see him still speaking the same in subsequent books. 



Stephen L Smith said:


> learning the "language of the angels". My Scottish blood was aroused. During question time I explained that my beloved Dutch brethren had to understand that Scotland, not the Netherlands, was the 'land of the covenant'. It created a stir



hahaha... love this story! I love both the Scottish and Dutch history. The Scottish were so smart about teaching their kids about theological errors via history. I love the Scottish covenant work. Wrote my MA thesis on John Murray's CT. And I also love the Protestant Reformed CT. I think these are two of the most thoughtful, historically aware, correcting the errors of the past lines. Very good stuff.



Stephen L Smith said:


> Seriously, it was good you mentioned the Dutch and the Scots, as I believe both traditions are fine examples of Reformed Christianity. I think those trained at TMS often are unaware, for example, that Bavincks Reformed Dogmatics is a fine combination of Exegetical Theology, Systematic theology, as well Historical Theology. Little wonder people say Bavinck is very balanced.



Yes! I think Bavinck is fantastic! I love his historical awareness and comments. Especially on CT. Very helpful.



Stephen L Smith said:


> Still, MacArthur has made strong links with godly Reformed pastors such as RC Sproul, and now Joel Beeke. So he must do some things right



 He does. Love his flaming of the Charismatic Chaos and Strange Fire and Word Faith cult. Of course his call to be biblical and godly too. Great conversation. Thanks, brother!


----------



## ZackF (May 11, 2019)

nickipicki123 said:


> Macathurites don't dance at weddings and expect women to obey all men?


Except if I say, ‘may I have this dance?’

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 15, 2019)

psycheives said:


> Horton critiqued him, he revised the red version and tried to correct the error in his next book. Still, I see him still speaking the same in subsequent books.


I now realise why I said the problem was that MacArthur's Lordship Salvation lacked balance because he did not have Covenant Theology as a theological framework. I have just started reading "The Marrow of Modern Divinity" by Edward Fisher. I have not read enough to fully commnt but so far I am impressed with how he links law-grace with his covenant theology. If only MacArthur had read Fisher 


psycheives said:


> Great conversation. Thanks, brother!


Thank you for your input. I had been struggling when I had discussions with TMS trained pstors so your comments have been especially helpful. As I said in the first post of this forum:


Stephen L Smith said:


> "they have so much like us" but also "they have real things not in cmmon with us"

Reactions: Like 1


----------

