tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post7786181289912966213..comments2024-01-12T09:37:16.515-06:00Comments on paleoevangelical: Concerning Chuck Phelps' Concern that John MacArthur Teaches Works RighteousnessBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07113808932788409800noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-28030041879104902602009-07-07T21:20:36.586-05:002009-07-07T21:20:36.586-05:00As I understand it pastor phelps knew of a revisio...As I understand it pastor phelps knew of a revision...I think he owes johnny mac an apology as well.<br /><br />MatthewMatthew Richardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081538726242476449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-38437211202211996852009-07-06T13:12:47.225-05:002009-07-06T13:12:47.225-05:00I hadn't been back here for awhile, but I skim...I hadn't been back here for awhile, but I skimmed this thread, and I want to make note that I'm happy to hear that MacArthur has retracted that statement. If he had done so, and Phelps knew about it, Phelps owes a retraction and an apology to MacArthur. If he knew that it had been changed and stated the former version (not even written by MacArthur) anyway, that would be a very bad thing to do. I don't know Chuck Phelps. I've had one small email exchange with him, but I would be interested in finding out if someone has looked to see if this is true, that is, that he purposefully read a false quote to misrepresent MacArthur. That's a very serious claim.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-89604260691903632222009-06-27T18:56:42.190-05:002009-06-27T18:56:42.190-05:00Lou, I am curious about something. Is John MacArt...Lou, I am curious about something. Is John MacArthur a false teacher then who is deceiving many, many young pastors and one day will himself be in hell?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-56164478716898623652009-06-27T14:21:10.742-05:002009-06-27T14:21:10.742-05:00If none of you take each other seriously, then why...If none of you take each other seriously, then why do you keep responding to each others posts? Just a thought... :)Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-18104497052418942812009-06-26T06:25:50.663-05:002009-06-26T06:25:50.663-05:00Matthew:
do you not understand english? ...pet is...Matthew:<br /><br /><i>do you not understand english? ...pet issue...your fetish...sickening...hijack...push your agenda...sickening.</i><br /><br />When you write in terms like that, it should be no wonder as to why most have hard time taking the YF seriously. You YF types can be far more vitriolic and condescending in speech in the blogs than most of the men from our IFB heritage ever were in their newspapers. Plus, those remarks go against the grain of Matt. 7:1-2, which has consequences.<br /><br />When I read that kind of thing, I immediately see immaturity and emotionalism. I don't even take any of that seriously, no more than I do Phil when he resorts to his bluster.<br /><br />I suspect that in time and with maturity you'll look back at statements like that with sorrow unto repentance for having expressed yourself that way. <br /><br />I expect that kind of speech from teens at Facebook or My Space, but from men who claim Christ as Lord, well...<br /><br />You might memorize <b>Col. 4:6</b> before you post on line. That passage helps me. And before you post you might ask yourself if you would say to me in person the things you write in these blogs.<br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-13041933101683764322009-06-25T21:39:43.340-05:002009-06-25T21:39:43.340-05:00Lou,
JM revised the paragraph--do you not underst...Lou,<br /><br />JM revised the paragraph--do you not understand english? Maybe Phelps will offer a revision of his statements at Bethel in Schaumburg. Amazing that nobody else is asking for Phelps to apologize--you are trying to focus on your pet issue. Your fetish with JM and PJ is sickening--you hijack any conversation in order to push your agenda--sickening IMHO.<br /><br />MatthewMatthew Richardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081538726242476449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-46003193827599934312009-06-25T21:35:31.274-05:002009-06-25T21:35:31.274-05:00this isn't about JM and HtB. this is about a ...this isn't about JM and HtB. this is about a pastor who criticized JM regarding a paragraph that was an editor's mistake and that has been revised long ago. If Phelps had a problem with JM and his view of salvation at least he could have just taken him to task instead of using a paragraph from a book that obviously was not correct. Lou is trying to take things back to his pet issue--stalking JM and PJ. Don't let him take the focus away from the issue at hand in the original post here at Paleoevangelical--Charles Phelps wrongfully went after another pastor and should apologize publicly and swiftly. I challenge anyone to refute this fact. <br /><br />MatthewMatthew Richardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081538726242476449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-29180478025539106402009-06-25T15:43:56.459-05:002009-06-25T15:43:56.459-05:00Lou,
You've made the dead horse into glue. N...Lou, <br />You've made the dead horse into glue. No, there aren't a bunch of us out there wondering when Johnny M is going to personally come out and say what Lou M wants him to say. I'm sure he's not losing a bit of sleep over it. It's been dealt with long ago as per Phil's emails and posts here. Let it be.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-49331140339722961012009-06-25T15:06:48.890-05:002009-06-25T15:06:48.890-05:00Matthew:
I don't think you realize just how m...Matthew:<br /><br />I don't think you realize just how many men, in Fundamentalism, men who are primarily Calvinistic in theology, have been questioning why JM has NEVER personally addressed the controversial paragraph from <i>HtB</i>.<br /><br />I receievd an e-mail today, an hour ago, from another pastor who is high profile in the IFB camp. He wrote, "<i>To my knowledge JM has not commented on that statement. <b>I think he should</b></i>."<br /><br />JM has NEVER personally, publicly commented on and disavowed the original; why not???<br /><br />As serious a doctrinal error as the original is, which appears in a book bearing JM's name, why would a man not rush to personally disavow it? Why? Is it possible JM does not entirely disagaree with the original?<br /><br />Phil can complain and bluster all he wants, but this is an issue that has never gone away and as long as JM refuses to personally go on public record it is not going away anytime soon. I don't suggest I am going to stay on this, but it is always going to be an undercurrent, IMHO.<br /><br />You just saw a new comment by Jeremy who is questioning this.<br /><br /><br />LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-34668363219699705772009-06-25T14:53:37.069-05:002009-06-25T14:53:37.069-05:00Jeremy:
You asked a good question, which was, “if...Jeremy:<br /><br />You asked a good question, which was, “<i>if I go to my local Christian bookstore and pick up a copy of ‘Hard to Believe’, will it still lead it’s audience to believe that there’s a works for Salvation necessity</i>?”<br /><br />The answer is “<i>Yes</i>,” <i>definitely</i>, if it is read with discernment. Most people don’t read his books carefully figuring if it is by MacArthur- it must be OK! In either the original or revised version of <i>HtB</i> you will find a works based message from John MacArthur as he expounds on his Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel.<br /><br />Earlier in this thread that not only from either version of the page 93 controversial paragraphs, but when comparing that to a number of other statements from JM’s various LS books, the theme is the same: the lost man must make a commitment to perform as a Christian to <b>BECOME a Christian</b>.<br /><br />That theme runs like a thread through all of Macarthur’s 5 major apologetics on Lordship Salvation. <br /><br /><i><b><a href="http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/2009/06/concerning-chuck-phelps-charge-that.html#2563797709257127624" rel="nofollow">Go here</a></b></i> to read the two consecutive comments I posted in this thread that irrefutable proves that, contrary to Phil Johnson’s claim, “<i>MacArthur teaches everywhere else…justification by faith</i>,” alone is <b>not at all the case</b>.<br /><br />Phil is not interacting with my argument for good reason: It is irrefutible because it is from MacArthur himself with no commentary necessary to illustrate LS, as JM defines it, is a message of <i>justification by faith</i>, <b>PLUS</b> commitment of life.<br /><br />That message corrupts the simplicity that is Christ (<b>2 Cor. 11:3</b>) and it frustrates grace (<b>Gal. 2:21</b>).<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-28616803708553119682009-06-25T11:48:50.118-05:002009-06-25T11:48:50.118-05:00Jeremy,
From what I can gather it appears that a ...Jeremy,<br /><br />From what I can gather it appears that a revision was made. Phil Johnson mentioned that it was also on the GTY website for a full year after the revision was put into circulation. It is an unfortunate mistake that has no perfect solution. Anyone familiar with his body of work could figure it out but those who were not would be left a bit confused.<br /><br />I think the issue here is really the fact that MacArthur was attacked by someone who should have known better. I feel that anyone familiar with JohnnyMac's ministry has no business using a paragraph like the one in question to beat the stuffing out of him. It is unacceptable IMHO. <br /><br />MatthewMatthew Richardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081538726242476449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-14245606929479487312009-06-25T11:23:50.469-05:002009-06-25T11:23:50.469-05:00To anyone reading and posting,
I'm not a Past...To anyone reading and posting,<br /><br />I'm not a Pastor and didn't go to seminary or anything, I was Saved later in life, and I am currently involved in various ministries deeply, and I would call myself a Biblicist. I understand the human error in publishing something that was taken out of context. I'm not perfect, so I understand all of that, completely. But...if I go to my local Christian bookstore and pick up a copy of 'Hard to Believe', will it still lead it's audience to believe that there's a works for Salvation necessity? And if so, when will this be revised. As I said earlier, I was Saved later in life, so my voice would be from an audience of first generation Christian's who are seeking God and the teachings of men like MacArthur (who I respect) for Spiritual growth.<br /><br /><br />-JeremyJeremynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-51206544416464092152009-06-25T09:04:03.028-05:002009-06-25T09:04:03.028-05:00Ben,
So since a public explanation already exists...Ben,<br /><br />So since a public explanation already exists and a revision has been made (a long time ago) what should Charles Phelps do? Pastor "A" specifically criticizes Pastor "B" over an issue that is a non-issue and simply a mistake by an editor of a book he wrote. The critique was done by Pastor "A" in a very public manner and is in fact still online for more to hear the incorrect attack. Does Pastor "A" owe a very public apology to Pastor "B"? I am curious as to what others think about this.<br /><br />MatthewMatthew Richardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081538726242476449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-90120864039580677272009-06-24T20:54:08.451-05:002009-06-24T20:54:08.451-05:00Phil:
This year I have twice sent an e-mail to Na...Phil:<br /><br />This year I have twice sent an e-mail to Nathan Busenitz (JM’s personal assistant) asking him to forward to JM a copy of a transcript of a recorded sermon in which he (JM) is preaching on child conversion.<br /><br />Later this year I am going to publish this and my commentary. This transcript is IMO nearly as controversial as the p. 93 from HtB. <br /><br />I sent the transcript to JM through Nathan to give benefit of the doubt. To see if JM might like to edit, explain or retract what is there before I publish.<br /><br />For the third and final time I am going to resend and you will receive a carbon.<br /><br />In this thread you wrote, “<i>If I had received a personal e-mail from you about this matter, I most certainly would have replied to it</i>.”<br /><br />You are going to have that chance again. If you ignore it, don’t give JM a chance to review it, then you have no defense this time around.<br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-7050263170273488682009-06-24T20:52:02.046-05:002009-06-24T20:52:02.046-05:00Phil:
You wrote of a, “John-MacArthur-approved cl...Phil:<br /><br />You wrote of a, “<i>John-MacArthur-approved clarification</i>.” That obviously means it was not written by him. He approved another individual’s explanation for the original.<br /><br />It would take Dr. MacArthur 5 minutes to draft a memo disavowing the original and 5 minutes for you to post it at GTY, Pulpit Magazine or wherever you like. But it seems that original version has never been deemed important enough for him to go to the trouble himself; why?<br /><br />And with that, I’ll move on to the doctrinal concern with the versions that I directed to your attention earlier in this thread.<br /><br />I have already shown in this thread that even the revised is NOT a message of “<i>justification by faith</i>” as you claim it to be. The revision simply sanitizes the blunt terms of the original. Is it possible this is why he has NEVER personally and publicly disavowed the original?<br /><br />In both of HtB and in the additional quotes from various works of his (provided above) I have shown irrefutably that JM is not preaching “justification by faith” alone as you Phil claim for his view. He is teaching faith, plus a promise to perform as a Christian <b>to BECOME a Christian</b>, just like it says on p. 93 of <i>HtB</i>, in both versions. This is a fact that is verified by his own writing across the last 20 years in which he has reiterated and reinforced that same teaching.<br /><br />Now, Phil: are you going to deal with the documented argument I have presented to you? <br /><br /><br />LM<br /><br />PS: I never have concerned myself with your opinions of me or my work because you have never demonstrated the kind of maturity that I can respect. As I reminded you yesterday- you are widely known for a kind of speech and internet behavior that is antithetical to the otherwise good reputation of the GTY ministries for graciousness and decency in its communications. You might want to try to emulate Dr. MacArthur’s and Nathan’s good example in your future communications, especially the private ones.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-82361250021039374362009-06-24T09:36:31.587-05:002009-06-24T09:36:31.587-05:00Lou: "Where is John MacArthur’s personal stat...<b>Lou:</b> <i>"Where is John MacArthur’s personal statement against the controversial quote, in its original form, from p. 93 of Hard to Believe (HtB)? Is it available for the public to consider?"</i><br /><br />See above, where I posted it in full. Are you suggesting you're not obliged to accept it as a legitimate statement of John MacArthur's position until I send you an autographed copy?<br /><br />Lou, the utter lack of integrity in your approach to this is transparently obvious to most. The fact that you yourself don't see that explains why you have such a hard time getting serious people to take you seriously.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-73547296242646874922009-06-24T07:13:53.148-05:002009-06-24T07:13:53.148-05:00James:
You asked, “Do you have some articles or s...James:<br /><br />You asked, “<i>Do you have some articles or something then if not the book</i>?”<br /><br />Sure I do, glad you asked! I’m actually writing a new book as well. It is titled, <i><b>Memoirs From Deputation: It was Fun, Most of the Time</b></i>. I shared the outline with several pastors who seem very enthusiastic about it.<br /><br />Anyway, here is a sampling of articles from my blog by category, with the number of articles in each. Some are totally about the subject, some include mentions of the subject, some categories have overlapping articles.<br /><br /><i><b><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Crossless%20Gospel" rel="nofollow">The “Crossless” Gospel (71)</a></b></i><br />Includes the Grace Evangelical Society, Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.<br /><br /><i><b><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Hodges%27s%20Hydra%20Head" rel="nofollow">The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism (10)</a></b></i><br />Evaluations of Zane Hodges’s final article just before his passing. This is a tragic look at what became his legacy of a slide into reductionist heresy.<br /><br /><i><b><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Lordship%20Salvation" rel="nofollow">Lordship Salvation (43)</a></b></i><br /><br /><i><b><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Separation" rel="nofollow">Separation (18)</a></b></i><br /><br /><i><b><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Rick%20Warren" rel="nofollow">Rick Warren- Saddleback (7)</a></b></i><br /><br /><i><b><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Mark%20Driscoll" rel="nofollow">Mark Driscoll (2)</a></b></i><br /><br /><i><b><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-about-spurgeons-stand-for.html" rel="nofollow">Charles H. Spurgeon (3- linking to 1)</a></b></i><br /><br /><i><b><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Ordo%20Salutis" rel="nofollow">Ordo Salutis (1)</a></b></i><br /><br />There are many more for your consideration.<br /><br />Thanks again for asking.<br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-49877171727082776332009-06-24T07:08:18.098-05:002009-06-24T07:08:18.098-05:00James:
You wrote, “Typically there is that one gu...James:<br /><br />You wrote, “<i>Typically there is that one guy who doesn't seem to get it despite it being obvious to everyone else.</i>”<br /><br />Yeah, I know what you mean. <br /><br />I’m just glad to read in Scripture where men like Noah, Elijah, the little band of disciples in the upper room and Paul on Mars Hill weren’t deterred by the crowd(s) who thought they saw and knew the obvious; aren’t you? <br /><br />And Spurgeon took his stand in his day; didn’t he? Thank God for him!<br /><br />I'm grateful we have men in the NT church today who will not cave in to the “<i>everyone elses</i>” who think they have the market cornered on truth; aren’t you?<br /><br />The ironic thing is that the ones who think they are the “<i>everyone else</i>” don’t have “<i>everyone else</i>” with them. They just don’t see it. Or maybe they don't want to see it. I don’t know which.<br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-8790754317909595772009-06-24T07:07:07.435-05:002009-06-24T07:07:07.435-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-57574794061892069622009-06-24T00:39:36.071-05:002009-06-24T00:39:36.071-05:00Yeah, I can understand that. I have grown rather ...Yeah, I can understand that. I have grown rather tired of blogs. I find though that on blogs so little can actually be said to really help instruct others. Typically there is that one guy who doesn't seem to get it despite it being obvious to everyone else.<br /><br />Do you have some articles or something then if not the book?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-80346905558619719412009-06-23T21:03:32.990-05:002009-06-23T21:03:32.990-05:00Hi Jim:
You wrote, "I know Ben to be a perso...Hi Jim:<br /><br />You wrote, "<i>I know Ben to be a person who really enjoys reading. Would you be willing to maybe send him a copy of your book free of charge</i>?"<br /><br />Interesting idea, but here is how I think. Why should I absorb the cost of my book and the mailing when I can get the kind of criticism that has been and is certain to continue coming from Ben for free?<br /><br />Thanks anyway, but if he loves to read, I suggest he waits until later this year when the revised and expanded edition is released. <br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br /><br />LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-69264279536034290722009-06-23T17:38:56.534-05:002009-06-23T17:38:56.534-05:00Lou, could you post on here more about your book a...Lou, could you post on here more about your book and what is wrong with Lordship salvation? I think it will help Ben see where you are coming from. In fact, I know Ben to be a person who really enjoys reading. Would you be willing to maybe send him a copy of your book free of charge?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-65784020634512593602009-06-23T17:26:07.112-05:002009-06-23T17:26:07.112-05:00Todd:
You have your ministry to the unsaved Mormo...Todd:<br /><br />You have your ministry to the unsaved Mormons and I thank God for your being there among them to do that difficult work. I am not called to that work.<br /><br />I will, however, do what I can to expose and refute from the Scriptures the works-based non-saving message of LS. JM just happens to be the most prolific apologist and widely known advocate for that teaching.<br /><br />FWIW, in this thread I presented to Phil what I believe is solid argumentation and illustrations of JM’s doctrinal error from both versions of the page 93 passage in <i>HtB</i>. I am curious if Phil wants to engage that discussion.<br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-53603056609043322472009-06-23T17:11:09.486-05:002009-06-23T17:11:09.486-05:00Lou, you are like a tenacious bulldog chomping on ...Lou, you are like a tenacious bulldog chomping on the pant leg of John MacArthur, year after year.<br /><br />I have stopped taking this seriously.<br /><br />But I would wish for you to retract that grip, clone yourself 14 more times, and then clamp on to the pressed suit pant legs of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles in Utah and the gospel they preach to the millions.Todd Woodhttp://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-22350728806851690472009-06-23T16:57:17.378-05:002009-06-23T16:57:17.378-05:00Phil:
Where is John MacArthur’s personal statemen...Phil:<br /><br />Where is John MacArthur’s personal statement against the controversial quote, in its original form, from p. 93 of <i>Hard to Believe</i> (<i>HtB</i>)? Is it available for the public to consider? If not; why not?<br /><br />I have to imagine there are many copies of the original <i>HtB</i> on bookshelves in homes and college libraries across the country. Whether it is me or someone else the nagging question is going to keep surfacing. <br /><br />Will you ask Dr. MacArthur to reproduce his personal statement disavowing the original, highly controversial paragraph from <i>HtB</i>?<br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.com