Problems with the Book of Mormon gives lots of examples of where the BOM contradicts the Bible, history, and even Mormon Doctrine.
Summary of Roman Catholic Teachings about Mary - the title should be enough to tell you what this one is about.
Mark Driscoll has decided that if a person is a cessationist in regards to the spiritual gift, then that person is “worldly,” because cessationism is “worldliness.” His logic is horrible, and Frank Turk has an open letter to him in response.
Ah, Joel Osteen. What can I say?
26 comments:
Hi Glenn,
Furtick - no shock there. His supporters are probably as greedy for gain as he is. Now wait, doesn't that "quality" disqualify him from the pastorate? 1 Tim 3:3; Titus 1:7 And his manipulative spontaneous baptisms are an affront to God. Wolf. Not even in sheep's clothing.
Vines - he may yet steal the title I have for Rick Warren: "The Great Obfuscator". Scripture is clear on what sin is.
Sola Sisters's chart - great!
Driscoll - Proverbs 17:28 should become his life verse.
Atheist church - why do they call it a church? Church by its very definition is the bride of Jesus Christ, the very God they deny exists.
Osteen - needs to stick with his board game (see http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2013/11/your-best-life-now-board-game.html ), and leave theological matters to the grown ups.
Beer and Bibles - well, what you attract them with (booze) is what you attract them to (booze). These are in no way genuine gatherings of God's children. The last paragraph in the article hit home, though. Amen!
Hope things have come along well with your home repairs. I've been praying.
The apostasy today is unreal... surreal... yet, sadly real.
-Carolyn
Hi Carolyn,
I had to laugh at Driscoll's "life verse."
Thanks for your prayers; we just have one minor problem left - repairing front porch railing where four spindles were destroyed by a shingle slamming into them at 80 mph! Roof all re-shingled, soffits and fascia all replaced, new flag pole, broken siding places repaired, broken window and torn screens repaired. The neighbor's garage is almost finished with the rebuild, getting the last bit of siding - and I hear them still banging away as I type this.
Hi Glenn,
PTL for all the repairs! Will pray for the final repair to get done!
You're welcome for the laugh.
-Carolyn
So is it biblical to take the mark of the beast and still be able to get saved? According to MacArthur and Phil Johnson it is. And no it isnt here-say, that ballerina person left the link where Johnson admitted it. Oh wait anyone who points out MacArthur's flaws is bearing false witness right? According to you guys? Cause that link that anonymous put to Moriel DID pan out, cause Johnson did say MacArthur said that folks who take the mark can still be saved. Soooo, whats your thoughts now smart pants Carolyn and Glenn?
BARB, so I won't get accused of being a "coward"
The first article on Steven Furtick' new "home" made me sick to my stomach. From there the articles continued to grow ever worse.
Truly, I do not think professing Christians understand that we ALL will stand before God and give an account.
16,000sf - how grieved our LORD must be by the excesses, lies and half truths within the church in America today.
Barb,
The point MacArthur was making, and I tend to agree with, has to do with WHEN they take the mark. If a person is an unbeliever, so be it. But if the person became a believer AFTER taking the mark, then taking the mark is forgiven. There is only one unforgivable sin noted in Scripture, and that is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
But, let's say this is an error in understanding the text. Does this therefore make MacArthur a false teacher? Absolutely not. None of us are perfect and I know good teachers who have made errors in their teachings. A false teacher is one who teaches bad things continuously, or has a few teachings which are heretical or very aberrational to the point of causing harm to followers.
The point is that those who post that link misrepresent what MacArthur was saying.
Hi Glenn,
Was Barb's comment above also directed at me? (I assume yes - since I am a frequent poster named "Carolyn").
Glenn, if you will allow this (since it's your blog) - I have a slightly different response than you do.
Hi Barb-
You asked for my thoughts, and if Glenn is ok with posting them, this is how I see the situation.
The initial MoB audio clip from John MacArthur (where he said you can be saved after taking the mark) is over 30 years old. I believe it was from a Q&A, not a sermon. Anyhow, I do believe MacArthur mistaught in that audio clip. From how I read Revelation, I see the MoB as a "take it and perish" choice. It seems very clear to me in Scripture. Therefore I would believe those who take the mark cannot be saved. I also disagree with how Johnson and MacArthur handled the explanation of that old clip in the Oct 30 GTY blog (that "ballerina" referenced on Glenn's website Oct 30).
However, in subsequent preaching about the MoB, sermons that are newer than that audio clip, MacArthur has said "take it and perish". So except for that 30 year old clip, I see that MacArthur has taught correctly.
Does the 30 year old Q&A comment make MacArthur a false teacher? No. I agree with Glenn above in that regard, regarding the difference between a false teacher and a good teacher who misspeaks. Indeed, good teachers do make errors from time to time. All believers will err from time to time in our understanding of the word. For the record I do not agree with everything MacArthur teaches at all times. But I fully accept MacArthur as a brother in the Lord, because I see ample fruit of regeneration of the Holy Spirit in his life. He is a saved man, and I am thankful to have him as a brother.
Why I take issue with Moriel and the others who have dragged out that 30 year old audio clip and made such a fuss over it... whatever their motive was (and I hope it was well meaning, but misguided), I feel by isolating this one teaching, they were misrepresenting MacArthur. Was he wrong in *that particular 30 year old audio clip* - yes, I believe he was. Has he since taught CORRECTLY about MoB - YES HE HAS.
As far as what Glenn said above about the unforgivable sin, being blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, I see that sin as making a final decisive choice to reject who Christ is, with full knowledge. (In this respect I agree with the GTY blog 10/30). In the Gospels, the pharisees committed this sin, because they saw in full who Christ was and is, and said He did His miracles because He was "possessed by satan". Likewise, I see the MoB as a final decisive choice to reject who Christ is, with full knowledge, and embrace satan completely. Hence, unforgivable.
That's my take on the issue. I hope this helps.
Thanks Glenn, for allowing me space to flesh out my thoughts as a guest on your blog.
-Carolyn
Hi, Glenn. Just to note that the Driscoll thing and Frank's response is a couple years old. Not that he's recanted or modified or clarified or anything. But it isn't new news.
Beyond that, it is amazing how people focus on theoretical questions about the mark of the beast. Is it theoretically possible for a person who takes it in the tribulation to later be saved? Honestly, if someone gets that question right or wrong because they've rightly or wrongly misunderstood the Scripture is such an irrelevance to believers today.
We have real, significant problems among believers today, like conflicts, allowing the world's values to permeate our thinking, endorsing pop psychology, lack of concern for real errors in doctrine (like prosperity "Gospel" or even Mormon heresies), immorality, emotion-hype masquerading as "worship", and on and on.
But someone might be wrong about a theoretical question about what could possibly happen in the tribulation. Which none of us are going to experience anyway.
Jon,
Yes, I saw the date, but I see it as an example of Driscoll's attitude, which I think may have been one of the reasons he decided to "crash" the "Strange Fire" conference.
I concur whole-heartedly with your statements about theoretical questions and that focussing on such things instead of real issues is a waste of time and energy.
Carolyn I thank you for your kindness in which you answered the question. Thank you for your insight.
Jon and Glenn if my "theoretical question" was a waste of time to you guys, God forbid someone have a question that did not pertain to more "critical issues". Quite frankly I was just feeding off another post here and the comments in that post. So I was curious on Glen and Carolyn's answer.
It is ironic the level of assumption on these sites, and nonchalant pride hence "it being a waste of time asking such questions", when neither of you knew my motive for asking.
Take care,
Barb
Barb,
I think you misunderstood at least my response and perhaps Jon's.
It wasn't YOUR question we were commenting about being a "waste of time," rather it is the people who continue to harp on others' eschatological views for years on end. I have no problem with questions about eschatology in general, because I think it is a good idea to present all the various theories. But to then focus whole ministries on eschatology - as some do - and get in antagonistic debates about the future and whether someone is right or wrong, is certain a waste of time and energy when our main focus should be on preaching the Gospel and protecting if from the false teachers.
I wasn't ascribing any motive to your question. However, I think your question DID demonstrate a motive in the way it was presented with sarcasm, false charges (reference your claim of bearing false witness), and name-calling.
I ignored your behavior and responded directly to your question with no animosity, or accusations.
Hi Glenn, this is again for Barb, if you will permit it:
Barb,
You are certainly welcome. But I do want to address one thing with you very gently: your initial comment above, to which both Glenn and I responded, was a touch impolite. I think we would all do well to address one another with dignity and respect. Calling someone a "smarty pants" is truly unhelpful and unnecessary.
Additionally, this is Glenn's blog, and you are a guest here, as am I. We owe it to our host to be considerate of him, as he graciously allows our posts. I do hope you will ask for his forgiveness for how you addressed him.
From what I've noticed from interacting with Glenn, he has always been open to sincere questions and healthy dialogue, and treats people on his blog, even those with whom he disagrees, with respect. The only times I've ever witnessed him "getting tough" is with people who are intentionally belligerent. Even then, he is still controlled in his rebukes.
We all also need to be careful that we don't misunderstand one another online. Without looking at one another face to face, hearing vocal intonation, and seeing body language that normally accompanies personal communication, sometimes we can misread what someone is saying in electronic communication. I know I have done that at times, myself. That is why the Lord admonishes us to be quick to listen and slow to speak and slow to anger.
I hope this helps.
-Carolyn
Yes Carolyn perhaps I was sarcastic in my "smarty pants" reference. But, and I will add I SHOULD HAVE been more detailed as to why I was sarcastic (NOT that I am excusing my behavior). But you put down the source (being Moriel) as to nonchalantly bash the article that the anonymous person posted about Anton Bosch's impressions on the Strange Fire conference. Well Bosch is not affiliated with Moriel (if anything he writes a lot for Herescope but not Moriel), and the gist of the Moriel post WAS exactly what YOU said and that IS that MacArthur mis-taught in that teaching. Just like the references to Dallas Willard that MacArthur did back in the 90's. Irregardless of whether it was years ago, Grace To You HAS NOT pulled those teachings from circulation.
The pattern I seem to notice, is that ANY sort of questioning to MacArthur's "mistakes" or whatever, are always always defended in some sort of manner and brushed under the rug. The defense of this man that I have seen from some of these "followers" of his is almost cult like. It's as if people have raised this man to the level of infallibility. And yeah I am sure that you or Glenn or whoever else will have some remark about how you guys don't put MacArthur up on a pedestal and that you guys don't agree with everything he says, blah blah blah, and that is fine, but whether you guys realize it or not, you guys DO go out of your way to defend him. The Bible says "let God be true and every man a liar". Am I here to bash the man like the anonymous person did on that post where all this got started, no, not at all, but I'd like to think elevating any man is not healthy either. Just because someone exposes error in the church doesn't mean that they do not have issues of their own. Closing Stages on Wordpress and M'Kayla's Korner on Wordpress have also come out with troubling teachings by MacArthur.
What is troubling to me, honestly, is if it was ANYONE else, ANY OTHER teacher, it wouldn't be AS offensive, but since it is John MacArthur who is in question on the fact that maybe he isn't all that great a teacher after all, it is almost like committing an act of blasphemy to some...that is scary!
So yeah, the smarty pants comment? Yeah I DID say that, because Phil Johnson ADMITTED that MacArthur said that (that a person could take the mark of the beast and still be saved) and not only that Johnson AGREED with MacArthur! So to bash Moriel, which by the way Jacob Prasch is a fine teacher, NOT perfect by any mean, and by golly irregardless of how fine a teacher I think Prasch is, I'd like to think that when/if Prasch were to make some major public mistakes that would come to a head, that I would swallow my pride and admit to his errors as opposed to defending the man as if he were perfect simply because he exposing false teachers.
So YES my apologies for my sarcasm, but it really does bother me to see people elevate ANY man to ANY level AND not only that, but making excuses for their mistakes....very dangerous to do that.
Regards,
Barb
Barb,
I have defended ONE thing MacArthur has said; I was defending what he said and what he meant as I understood him to mean and how he has been misrepresented in that instance. It wasn’t heretical or even aberrational, which is why I wonder why so many are complaining and making a big deal out of it.
It's as if people have raised this man to the level of infallibility. And yeah I am sure that you or Glenn or whoever else will have some remark about how you guys don't put MacArthur up on a pedestal and that you guys don't agree with everything he says, blah blah blah, and that is fine, but whether you guys realize it or not, you guys DO go out of your way to defend him.
So when you say this, these are the claims I see:
1. By defending this one charge against MacArthur, I am thereby putting him to a level of infallibility.
2. If I say I don’t put him on a pedestal and don’t agree with everything he says, then you really don’t believe this is true, and you marginalize my truth statements with “blah blah blah.”
3. In your mind I don’t realize that I am going out of my way to defend him.
My responses:
1. How you determine that I - or anyone - lift MacArthur to a level of infallibility is beyond my comprehension, and seems to be nothing but a hyperbolic misrepresentation my defending him against a false charge about what he was teaching about the mark of the beast.
2. You are making a judgment about my heart - what I think - when you say I put MacArthur on a pedestal. And you are doing the same to suggest that I’m just blowing smoke to say that I don’t agree with everything MacArthur says. There isn’t a single teacher in the world with which I would agree with everything they teach. But let’s just take MacArthur for example - I totally disagree with anything he teaches relating to Calvinism. Yet you would apparently not find this to be true, of if you agree with my belief here, you discount it and marginalize it as insignificant because I happen to think there is a big ta-doo about nothing with those charging him with being a false teacher because of what he said about the mark of the beast.
3. Please give ONE - just ONE, mind you - example of how I am “going out of [my] way to defend MacArthur.
You certainly ascribe a lot of feelings about MacArthur to not only me, but also Carolyn and anyone else who thinks the subject is blown out of proportion - such as we feel almost like it is blasphemy to speak anything against him.
You seem to think that if a person is an unbeliever and takes the mark of the beast, that if he hears the gospel and responds to it he cannot be saved because he committed the unpardonable sin. Why do you consider yourself to be the one in the right - because all those critics say you are? As noted above, the only unpardonable sin noted in Scripture is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
I think it is very dangerous to ascribe beliefs and feelings to people when said beliefs and feelings have not been expressed. No one here is making excuses for any mistake, nor are we elevating anyone.
Glenn I never said YOU raised him to the level of infallibility, I know you disagree with a lot of where he comes from. What I meant when I said that was you all come across as going out of your way to defend him irregardless of your disagreeing with some of his teachings.
The term "blasphemy" was meant as sarcasm by the way.
As far as the Mark of the Beast, my point was not the unpardonable sin, you have ADDED to what I said. Scripture explicitly says that those who recieve the mark will get thrown in the lake of fire along with the beast. To teach that you can still get it and get saved after is not Biblical. And fine, we ALL make mistakes, from me and you to public teachers, but Johnson clearly went along with MacArthur on this one. And NO I am not talking about the out of context video, before you assume and add to what I said again, but my point is that one vital thing being, is that they said one can take the mark and still get saved.
In regards to assuming your heart, that is not how I meant to come across, so if I came across that way I apologize.
Barb
Oh and one example of how you went out of your way, all you gotta do is read that one comment section where all this got started. I am not defending that anonymous person cause they were kinda rude too. But you all ranked on them. If anything all y'll were rude on that comment thread.
Barb
Barb,
Carolyn and I were the only two on this string who were defending MacArthur, so we would be a part of your "people" who raise MacArthur to such a level. It appeared to be a general statement to include anyone defending him.
"Going out of your way" has a particular connotation. It means going on a side trip, doing something not normal in the course one is maintaining. It is not going out my way to stand up for MacArthur - or anyone else - when I feel it is necessary to do so. I even defend Mormons when someone makes a false charge claiming they believe and teach something they do not believe or teach.
I didn't add anything to what you said in regards to an unpardonable sin. I'm addressing your claim that MacArthur's teaching was erroneous, as promoted by that link to Moriel. I pointed out what MacArthur was really teaching vs what people claim he was teaching, i.e., not that just anyone who takes the mark can still be saved, but rather one who takes the mark and then becomes a Christian can be saved. If you or any of those who say he is wrong in this teaching, then by default you are saying that such sin is not forgivable. It is very much biblical to say that if someone becomes a Christian after taking the mark he is saved. The Bible consistently teaches that all of our sins are forgiven, without excluding taking the mark of the beast prior to hearing the gospel.
And yet you are still saying it is problematic to say one can take the mark and still get saved. Show me from Scripture where any sin other than blaspheming the Holy Spirit prevents one from being saved.
As for the "blasphemy" statement, I don't think sarcasm is proper in the context of this discussion because I don't think this would be seen as sarcasm, considering the topic. I certainly didn't understand it to be sarcasm, rather it appeared to be a heartfelt belief about how some might respond to charges against MacArthur.
My main concern is how sites such as referenced, are making a major case out of this one issue, and with this issue are charging MacArthur with being a false teacher.
Barb, I just notice your second comment so it didn't get response to in the previous post.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about THIS comment string?!?
It says plain as day in the book of Revelation that those who receive the mark will be thrown into the lake of fire. Why don't you read it. Heck even Carolyn pointed that out.
And I never said MacArthur was a false teacher, you said I said that, I said he obviously isn't that great a teacher like everyone
thinks after all.
I dunno Glenn, this is your blog and you do what you want. Just like your quote by Augustine, who yes was responsible for calvinism but also for a lot of the catholic teachings as well. Irregardless of any truth the man might of said, he was erroneous. There is a lot of good quotes I could quote by Joyce Meyer, but her error over shadows any good things she has ever said. So to quote her? I don't think so.
The other thread is what I am referring to. But just forget it, any points I have tried to make get completely misconstrued, this conversation is going nowhere.
Sorry if you feel I was assuming your heart. And for my sarcasm. Good bye.
Barb
Glenn - again for Barb, if you allow:
Barb,
My desire isn't to bash anyone. You are absolutely correct that no man should be elevated, nor should error be excused. I have no argument there. But please don't ascribe to me feelings and beliefs that *you think* are in my (or anyone else's) heart. That is, as Glenn said, dangerous.
Regarding Moriel, I have zero knowledge of that ministry, so I cannot speak either for better or worse about them. The first I heard of them was this MacA situation. My issue with them is that I do not believe they currently are handling the situation with MacA well. I feel neither Prasch's "How the Mighty Have Fallen" (the title alone is inappropriate) nor Mr. Bosch's article about his "Impressions from SF" were handled properly. Please know that I read both articles, and while did agree with *some* of what both men said, I definitely did not agree with *all* their assertions, and definitely did not agree with the tone in which either man spoke. I feel they could have used more accuracy in how they reported the scriptural issues with MacA, and restraint in how they handle their disagreement with him.
I am able to say more about MacA simply because I have many years of familiarity with him and his ministry. As I said before, I absolutely do not agree with everything MacA teaches, nor did I agree with how Phil Johnson handled the MoB issue in the Oct blog. I also do not appreciate how GTY sometimes handles non-Calvinist and non-cessationist Christians. But notice: I can disagree without the hyperbole that "A Mighty One Has Fallen" (Prasch) or without being concerned about the implications of an elegantly set table (Bosch).
Regarding error on *any* ministry's website: what faithful ministry doesn't have at least some error on their site at any given time? None of us are infallible. The Bible is our only infallible source, and we are to be Bereans at all times.
I agree, when error is spotted, it should be corrected. Though sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes we need to accept that and move on.
If one believes MacA should take down the 30 yo MoB error from GTY's site, one also should require Moriel to take the "How the Mighty Have Fallen" article down, because it contained error, and its tone toward a brother is inappropriate.
I hope this helps.
-Carolyn
Glenn,
PS for Barb, your post at November 29, 2013 at 9:55 AM:
Are you referring to the Glenn's Oct 30 Random Apostasies comment section? The one where the very angry and rude Anonymous person posted at time stamps: 10/30 9:41 PM; and 10/31 11:02 AM, 11:19 AM, 12:12 PM, 5:36 PM? The anon who referenced the out of context you tube clip from Strange Fire, as well as the article from Moriel?
My comment in that post was not addressing Moriel. It was addressing the totally out of context youtube video and Anonymous's rude remarks. I only referenced Moriel because Anon had brought them up. My point about Moriel was and is: that Moriel recently posted 2 inaccurate articles about MacA, both Prasch's and Bosch's. And they did. I say that dispassionately and matter of fact.
To clarify, in the last paragraph of my first comment on Oct 30, about misrepresenting MacA as being slander and utterly reprehensible behavior was directed to that angry Anonymous person, and the out of context youtube video about SF s/he referenced. That out of context youtube clip was absolutely slanderous. It was a deliberate misrepresentation of MacA and what actually transpired at SF.
Barb, none of us were rude to that Anonymous person. I see everyone as being rather restrained with someone who was frankly flying off at the mouth. Remember what the Lord says about being quick to listen, slow to anger and slow to speak? That Anonymous was none of the above.
Hope this helps.
-Carolyn
Barb,
Rev. 21:8 says that murders, sexually immoral, and idolaters will be in the lake of fire. By your reasoning, if anyone was a murderer, and adulterer, a fornicator, or an idolater prior to becoming a Christian, then they still go into the lake of fire.
Scripture interprets Scripture. Since all Scripture says that those who are in Christ are a new creation and no sin is unforgiven, the for a scripture to say those who take the mark of the beast can’t be saved would by context of the whole of Scripture be referring only to those who did not become a Christian afterwards.
I didn’t say YOU said MacArthur is a false teacher - but those who are complaining about that teaching on the internet in many places are calling him that.
Augustine was never considered a heretic, for all the bad teachings he had. Joyce Meyer is a rank heretic. That’s the difference to start with. And most Christians consider Augustine worthy of studying.
And I have no idea what “other thread” you are referring to, but if it is on my blog, I challenge you to point out where I was rude.
I am sorry Glenn you are wrong, Revelation 21 is the second death. And you cannot ignore Revelation 14:8-11
8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Taking the mark is a form of a judgment.
It even says in Revelation 20:4
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
I am done here. And for the record my argument is not about the unpardonable sin, YOU are the one making it about that. I am simply going by scripture, which IS clear that those who get the mark ARE doomed.
Take care,
Barb
Barb,
For the record, you ARE talking about an unpardonable sin when you say if a person accepts the mark and THEN becomes a Christian, then he really isn't saved.
And it also really depends upon one's understanding of what is taking place when in the Revelation. That has been disputed and argued for hundreds of years.
The scriptures ARE clear to NOT take the mark of the beast. You cannot argue Revelation 14. It says loud and clear that they receive the wrath of God. You are wrong, you can argue the whole "interpretation" bit all you want, but it says what it says.
I am sorry Glenn but your pride in not admitting the clear words of scripture is very evident.
Good luck.
Barb
Barb,
The question is, can a person take the mark of the beast and later become a Christian and be saved?
You say that it isn't possible. Which means you disagree that a Christian is saved from all sins.
The passage really doesn't touch on the "what if a person then becomes a Christian?"
To accuse me of pride because I don't understand the passage as referring to those who may become Christians later, is nothing less than claiming to know my motives and my heart attitude.
By the way, I've never claimed to have all the answers, nor have I claimed to be infallible in understanding what the Scripture says. Perhaps I am wrong that no one can become a Christian after taking the mark. But if a person who takes the mark then later becomes a Christian, Scripture plainly says that all sins are forgive once we place our faith in the work of Christ.
What you must be arguing is that no one will be able to learn the gospel after taking the mark, while I think the Bible doesn't even address that possibility.
Post a Comment