MacArthur, author of â€śBeing a Dad Who Leads,â€ť said that these denominations â€” like Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which recently voted to allow same-sex nuptials â€” and their associated seminaries have been skirting scriptural tenets for decades.
He patently described them as â€śfalse churchesâ€ť that fail to teach biblical truths.
â€śThey have no allegiance to the Bible,â€ť he said. â€śYou go back to every one of those seminaries â€¦ for a century [they] have been deniers of biblical authority, they have no relationship to scripture, they are the apostate church, they are Satanâ€™s church.â€ť...
John U.K., when seminaries start ignoring Hebrew and Greek we are in trouble,
Dr. Daniel Wallace wrote: I know we are studying the English Bible and how important it is for our faith. But I want to turn right now and speak to the future pastors, the future Bible translators, the future theologians and apologists in this room. For you, the Greek NT and Hebrew OT are even more important than the English Bible. All of the Reformersâ€”from Luther to Calvin, from Zwingli to Melanchthonâ€”insisted on two fundamentals for any who would become pastors. First, they had to hold to the right doctrinesâ€”sola scriptura, sola fidei, sola gratia. But second, they had to learn Greek and Hebrew. This was not an option for any ministers of the Word.
excerpt from, [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1824]]]Part III: From the KJV to the RV (from Elegance to Accuracy)[/URL].
Quite correct, Bill, [URL=http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html]]]Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition[/URL]
Harrold Lindsell wrote a book many years ago called "The Battle For The Bible" in which he traced the liberalization/downgrade of the major protestant denominations to the new pastors coming out of seminaries which did not teach the inerrancy of the Word of God. We are seeing that fruit!
â€śThey have no allegiance to the Bible,â€ť he said. â€śYou go back to every one of those seminaries â€¦ for a century [they] have been deniers of biblical authority, they have no relationship to scripture, they are the apostate church, they are Satanâ€™s church.â€ť ...
This was bound to happen when seminaries do not teach that the Bible in your hand is the inspired and inerrant word of God. Once pastors accept the teaching of seminaries, their first church will be led into doubt and compromise, and genuine faith will be sadly lacking.
Wholeheartedly agree with Pastor MacArthur in calling a sin, a sin, and to point out how false churches can be traced back to their foundation. For those who denounce the authority of the Bible have asserted their own authority, and those render the meaning of the Bible ambiguous have asserted their own intention clearly, more clearly by their own agenda.
MacArthur is correct in his evaluation of these so-called "churches." They are obviously not Christian churches, for they reject the final authority of the Bible, while at the same time using the name "Christian" to deceive people into believing that they are something which they obviously are not. They have abandoned the ethical principle of "truth in advertising." Why should true Christians recognize any religious organization that celebrates homosexuality as having a legitimate claim to the name Christian? They have no more right to that name than does a religious organization that denies the resurrection of Christ or the deity of Christ. No one is saying these organization are not religious; they are. But the religion they represent is not what James called "true religion." It is not "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" by Jesus Christ through His chosen apostles. It is not apostolic Christianity at all, but a complete rejection of and assault on that faith.
No, Johnathan, it's like finding an article against nudity in Playboy Magazine If Playboy did such an article perhaps SA could put it up here? I have nothing against the article itself, I think you have seen that I have supported John MacArthur on numerous occasions, e.g., on the topic of [URL=http://articles.ochristian.com/book2177.shtml]]]Charismatic Chaos[/URL]. So, John MacArthur is right about the PCUSA.
So Mr. Lincoln because this was posted in Charisma Magazine its therefore invalid. Then the acticle was picked up by another Mormon on www.the blaze.com So if someone quoted a post from you in charisma you would no longer be the mouthpiece for Christiandom that you think you are.
Tito wrote: Folks, please research the origins of dispensationalism....try to understand that this hermeneutic is rooted in doctrines formulated by a catholic priest under the cover of being a Jesuit. The scriptures do not teach a secret rapture! Darby was kicked out of Plymouth brethren because he couldn't get along with people. Schofield, the convicted felon was divorced by his wife for abandonment. Do you really think that God would have used such seedy people to introduce doctrines that the early church never held too. Wake up! Christianity has been hijacked by a cultish hermeneutic. All dispensationalist need to come out of it.
He used a pagan to write a portion of Scripture. So?
You are correct in that the bible doesn't teach a "secret rapture." It won't be a secret.
Folks, please research the origins of dispensationalism....try to understand that this hermeneutic is rooted in doctrines formulated by a catholic priest under the cover of being a Jesuit. The scriptures do not teach a secret rapture! Darby was kicked out of Plymouth brethren because he couldn't get along with people. Schofield, the convicted felon was divorced by his wife for abandonment. Do you really think that God would have used such seedy people to introduce doctrines that the early church never held too. Wake up! Christianity has been hijacked by a cultish hermeneutic. All dispensationalist need to come out of it.
Thank you, Jim for including some links. Maybe you could look at the "I would go to jail over Jesus' name" news item and give some input there. You seem pretty solid in your understanding and ,of course,you do like to provide "links"...maybe that's why you are Jim "Link"oln. There seems to be some misunderstanding there as to the compatibility of Christianity and freemasonry.
From John's website, [URL=http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/TM13-7/a-case-for-cessationism-tom-pennington]]]http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/TM13-7/a-case-for-cessationism-tom-pennington (A Case for Cessationism (Tom Pennington))[/URL]. This is an excellent commentary.
Tito, you really should read, [URL=http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/AShortHistoryOfDispensationalism.html]]]A Short History Of Dispensationalism[/URL].
Reforming a church from the inside even just a nondenominational one, from what I have seen, is an impossible task. [URL=http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/Staying_in_Hope_of_Changing_the_Church]]]http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/Staying_in_Hope_of_Changing_the_Church (Staying in Hope of Changing the Church)[/URL]
Tito, you are way off. You're either ignorant of what MacArthur teaches or you are a slanderer. MacArthur, however, is a cessationist as you point out...that's a good quality. He's quite well read when it comes to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. If you are really a Christian, you might check out his teachings on such.
There are still some Christians within the some of the churches that MacArthur referrers to: some have left, some are leaving, and some are trying to reform from within. There are major problems with some denominations because they have forsaken the truth; but MacArthur needs to police his own house; he holds to the tenants of the cultish Zionist Dispensationalism/Jewish supremacy/and secret rapture beliefs that put the love of Israel above the love of the Christian brethren. The SBC allows members to be part of Free Masonry Satanic practices. MacArthur is a stanch secessionist concerning the work of the Holy Spirit and used to believe that Jesus Christ was not co-eternal with the Father. Looks like everyone has collected some unholy yeast and needs to return to the teachings to Christ concerning His Kingdom that has come near.
Jim Lincoln wrote: this is something of a bemusing incident. we have John MacArthur, rightly, attacking apostate churches in a publication that was founded by a Mormon! ---
It's only bemusing if you think telling the truth about something cannot happen in a publication founded by a Mormon. You link to the NYTimes often, a publication founded by a politician and a banker. Now those I would suspect have less issues with telling falsehoods than Mormons.