Christianity.com: John MacArthur Predicts Reversal of the Reformed Revival-Part 1

This webcam interview was part of a discussion between Christianity.com Editor Alex Crain and Dr. John MacArthur regarding his 2011 book, "Slave: The Hidden Truth about Your Identity in Christ" (published by Thomas Nelson).

In light of the book's theme, Dr. MacArthur was asked to share some of his concerns about the current ministry practices and trajectory of evangelicalism in America.

Dr. MacArthur is a pastor, a popular author and conference speaker, and has served as pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California since 1969. He serves as the president of The Master's College and The Master's Seminary. Some of his best-selling books include: "The Gospel According to Jesus," "Ashamed of the Gospel," "Twelve Ordinary Men," and "The MacArthur Study Bible."

www.christianity.com

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• john macarthur
• grace to you
• slave
• reformation
• revival
• jesus
• christ
• christian
• church

[spankula123]

God help us if there's a reformed revival.

[spankula123]

@otirudam False. Islam, as you know, is built on violence. It would be honorable to murder your children if they listen to rock, whereas a Christian would pray for their child. How is that the same? Before you default to "the crusades!" read up and know something about them. They were far from Christians going out to kill muslims.

[otirudam]

Christianity and Islamism are both violent religions that have expanded their dominions inmensely due to their use of military institutions. These two religions wouldnt be so powerful and hold in its grip the millions of people, acres and dollars they now have if it wasnt for the violent methods they put in effect for invading, manipulating and plundering other cultures. The word respect is not in their vocabulary in regards to other's peoples rigth to profess any beleif they want.

[fenderstrt4]

yeah i remember when MacArthur had a reformed ecclesiology... not!

[McDonnelMark]

Does MacArthur think that his ecclesiology is reformed? It isn't. He distinguishes between Israel and the Church and he does not baptize infants. There are many other things also. He is dispensational in his ecclesiology, not reformed.

[IDCreation1]

@McDonnelMark "a bunch of young guys" "holes in jeans" "beer in hand" Macarthur seems like he is focusing a lot at outward appearance. Jesus was young. He didn't wear suites and ties. and he turned water into wine. I have a feeling John would have called him an Arminian too and may not have liked him either.

[McDonnelMark]

How is it that wearing blue jeans and drinking beer is Arminianism? I'm a Calvinist, but I get concerned when Calvinism and Arminianism are simply defined as not only polar opposites, but the only two choices. It starts to sound like MacArthur is saying that what I believe is Calvinism and everything else is Arminianism. What a shallow view of theology and the Scriptures.

[mykola1986]

"Does it bother you that they use the name 'grace'? No, it bothers me that they use the word 'church.'" LOL

[mitchnicholscpa]

Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee.

Search me, o God, and know my heart; try me and know my thoughts. And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

[mitchnicholscpa]

Pick whatever flavor of gospel and Jesus that works for you I guess. Sad.

Before you lemmings attack me, take a hard look inside your heart. How is your quiet fellowship with the Lord going, in the still time when no one is watching and the loud music stops. How long do you meditate on His word? Sit at His feet? Inch deep I bet. These guys are angels of light. Beware !!!

Wherein can a young man cleanse his ways? By taking heed according to thy word. Thy word have I hid in my heart that I m

[mitchnicholscpa]

Having been in Driscoll's church for six months, where everything is about Driscoll as "solo Driscoll", not "solo scriptura", I agree completely with Dr. McArthur. I went to church and a ear deafening hard rock concert broke out.

What next? Todd Bentley at the next Desiring God conference? Mr. Piper, please change the name of your conference to "Pleasing the Times" Conference, for the sake of honesty. And T4G and Gospel Coalition? Pick whatever flavor of gospel and Jesus that works for you

[murrayv08]

Did John just say that Arminian theology is the reason some Christians curse and watch dirty movies?

[PSUIVERSON]

Love Dr. MacArthur - but in the reformed circles I am discipled and grow - we are not doing anything that he describes as "problems". It may be more beautiful and alive than he realizes. He may see a small sample size of YRR that he's concerned about.

[12343590]

Great respect for this man

[rofyle]

There is no yes, it does. There is only, the text says what the text says. It is not I who am using poor hermeneutics. "These are written for you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you know that you have eternal life" DOES NOT APPEAR IN 1 JOHN! Please stop reading into the text, and then accusing me of reading into it. As is obvious, it is not I who am reading into the text. I guess verses 20 and 21 of chapter 2 mean nothing to you, do they.

[banahdecristoROB]

@rofyle So your argument is just "Yes it does"...not very strong. As I said, John gives his purpose and it is poor hermeneutics to read something the author does not say into the text. "These are written for you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you know that you have eternal life." nothing in there about "also so that you know who isn't saved"...only God knows that. If there's no evidence, then there's no judgement made...(not enough facts) If there is evidence, then we can.

[rofyle]

@banahdecristoROB It doesn't matter if his reference is to false teachers or false tacos, the point remains the same. He explained 2 conditions by which his readers could say who was and who was not a true believer. And we're only talking John here. We're not talking Paul in Galatians and 1 and 2 Timothy, or Moses in Exodus (remember the test for a false prophet?), or Christ Himself (many will come saying . . . ). You deceive yourself, sir.

[banahdecristoROB]

@rofyle A very interesting argument Rofyle, But my rpeoly would be that John is clear in that context that his reference is to false teachers. or to those who claim to love God (4:20, 5:2) It is possible to be a believer by faith but acting in a way that doesnt show a love for God. We do it every time we sin willfully. (and he who says he doesnt is a liar and the truth is not in him) You cont mistake john's context of knowing that we are saved (5:13), with knowing who's not saved, which we cant.

[rofyle]

@banahdecristoROB I count MacArthur a false convert, a denier of the gospel. He advocates a view whereby our works serve as evidence to our conscience of our justification. The only evidence the Scripture allows however, is faith. Faith in the gospel - the message of justification for the elect alone by the grace of God alone upon the basis of the freely imputed righteousness of Christ alone.

[rofyle]

@banahdecristoROB What has the notion that they may have been leaders have anything to do with anything? Your comment was that we have no place to say who truly believes the gospel or not. As I pointed out, this is a self-refuting argument, for John himself gives his readers at least 2 conditions whereby they can tell who has true faith and who doesn't. Whether the deniers be leaders or laymen is neither here nor there.

[banahdecristoROB]

@rofyle it is hard tobelieve that John and the Apostles would have EVER accepted someone who denied Jesus returned in the flesh. They left us...means at one point they were "with" the Apostles. It only fits the context in the sense of leaders in the church left the counsel of the Apostles which proved hey were never truly leaders. "US" not that they were never truly saved...I think John would have used the word saved or believed if he meant it that way since that would be a very important point.

[rofyle]

@banahdecristoROB Another self-refuting argument. "They left us . . ." IS A REFERENCE TO PEOPLE WHO WERE NEVER OF US!!!!!!!! In other words, it is the apostle John telling us that he, and not just the Lord, knows who are the Lord's. And how does John know? BY THE GOSPEL THEY PREACH!!!! For example, he who denies Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is a deceiver and an antichrist, and "Every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God." (1 John 2:18-22, 4:3)

[banahdecristoROB]

Cant we do as Jesus, James, Peter and Paul commanded and love one another (Christians who hold to the essentials)? The topic should stay a theological discussion since in practice to us who dont know the heart, there are only two people in the world. Those following Jesus and those who are not...if they arent (Saved or not saved) the message is the same...repent, confess, and get right with God then obey. If they are following Jesus, then we embrace and accept them as brothers. Jesus is Central.

[banahdecristoROB]

@banahdecristoROB sorry for typos..."is a reference to the ones who "professed to be leaders" (cf. Gal 1-2) who proved they were never really leaders by the fact that they left the counsel of the Apostles. Note the "Left US" used (personal plural) versus the "you (second person plural) all" used in the rest of his letter.

[banahdecristoROB]

@rofyle They left us, therefore they were never of us...is a reference to the professing leaders (not the "us" not "you all"...that verse is not a reference to knowing who is truly saved based on how they persevere. Paul tells us in I Cor 3 that the ONLY TIME we will know which works are truly god or bad is in heaven. He also says, The Lord knows those that are his (in otherwords it is not our place to say who has "saving faith" or not BTW 'saving' faith is not a biblical adjective, it is Mac's)