Ever hear of John MacArthur? He is a particularly hostile Protestant.

[lak611]

A fellow named John MacArthur, who has a radio program called “Grace to You” has a particularly anti-Catholic bias. He says that the Mass is anti-Christian on this link: gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231486. He also has numerous links on his website that accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary. What do you think is the best response to this fellow?

 

[AlegreFe]

This man is sadly misinformed. I don’t know his reasoning behind how he feels. But I think that a lot of people feel the way that they feel because of something deep rooted in their past, not sure.

I can’t believe this man. He’s a bit “unleashed” if you will.

“Abba, Father, forgive him for he
does not know what he is saying.”

Please pray for this man as he needs many prayers and much enlightening. I hope one day he will dive deeper into what the Catholic Church teaches. I hope to see him one day on the Journey Home show on EWTN. Maybe we can have Marcus Grodi mail him some literature.

 

[ssejllenrad]

Please pray for this man as he needs many prayers and much enlightening. I hope one day he will dive deeper into what the Catholic Church teaches. I hope to see him one day on the Journey Home show on EWTN. Maybe we can have Marcus Grodi mail him some literature.

Yeah… I’d like to see him on that show. I hope he’ll be a future ex-anti-Catholic like John Chalberg or Scott Hahn and many others…

 

[Fidelis]

Yeah… I’d like to see him on that show. I hope he’ll be a future ex-anti-Catholic like John Chalberg or Scott Hahn and many others…

There’s hope for everyone, but I have my doubts when it comes to men like John MacArthur, talented though he may be in many areas. For one thing, in contrast to many other minister converts to Catholicism from Protestantism, this man is fabulously wealthy and successful – largely because he has been successful at deceiving Catholics to join his church (Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California. I grew up near there and know scores of ex-Catholics that attend there.) He has made a lot of money also by sponsoring virulently anti-Catholic groups and invites them to come to his campus to have seminars on how to “evangelize” lost Catholics. He has basically made his bread by being a notorious anti-Catholic.

He would have to give up a LOT to join the true Church, and I doubt his pride or financial situation would allow it.

Still, I do pray for him and others, like Hank Hanegraf (the “Bible Answer Man”) who, from what I understand, would be Rome-ward bound if there was not just so much to give up – financially, prestige-wise, and personally.

 

[sandusky]

Fidelis:

There’s hope for everyone, but I have my doubts when it comes to men like John MacArthur, talented though he may be in many areas. For one thing, in contrast to many other minister converts to Catholicism from Protestantism, this man is fabulously wealthy and successful – largely because he has been successful at deceiving Catholics to join his church (Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California. I grew up near there and know scores of ex-Catholics that attend there.)

A lie.

No ex-Catholic at GCC is deceived; they hear MacArthur’s preaching, are convicted of the truth by the H.S., leave their error behind and come into the light.

When preaching, or teaching on the RCC MacArthur lets the RCC speak for itself by using their documents; they are a sufficient indictment on their own.

Fidelis:

He has made a lot of money also by sponsoring virulently anti-Catholic groups and invites them to come to his campus to have seminars on how to “evangelize” lost Catholics. He has basically made his bread by being a notorious anti-Catholic.

Another lie. There are no seminars directed at evangelizing the Catholic church specifically, but all of the lost.

Fidelis:

He would have to give up a LOT to join the true Church, and I doubt his pride or financial situation would allow it.

MacArthur has never asked for a raise in all of his time at GCC (38 years next spring), although the elders do give him raises to see how he handles the money (he gives it away); in fact, he probably gives away more money in a year than you make. He is an exceptionally Godly man.

Fidelis:

Still, I do pray for him and others, like Hank Hanegraf (the “Bible Answer Man”) who, from what I understand, would be Rome-ward bound if there was not just so much to give up – financially, prestige-wise, and personally.

Money has nothing to do with it (2 Cor 6:14).

 

[rkberlin]

can’t argue with stupidity- or ignorance for that matter, just pray for him to educate himself better before he lashes out against Christ’s church.

 

[Fidelis]

A lie.

No ex-Catholic at GCC is deceived; they hear MacArthur’s preaching, are convicted of the truth by the H.S., leave their error behind and come into the light.

 

[Harpazo]

My dad (Protestant) received a horrible letter from him (sent out to thousands) with the title “The Secret Cult of Mary Worship” and inside there was a message about giving him money. The money would be used to save those “poor, lost Catholics.” He also mentioned how he wanted to further the rift of the Reformation. Sad…instead of preaching love, he’d rather preach animosity…

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

My soon to be Father in law, who is bitterly anti-Catholic sent my fiance and I a letter MacArthur wrote about Christian unity and how no matter what you are, Catholic or protestant you can not co-mingle with the other. He was refering to that, “Evangelical and Catholics together: The Christian mission” I think that was what it was called. But yea it had the same old stuff in it. “Catholics are encourage to offer adoration to Mary” “Catholics think they can work their way into heaven” “Catholics have a different Gospel than the Bible” so on and so forth. I found some good CA tracts on him and I tried to find them again but couldnt. However I did find a little about him here:

Fr. Gregory Coiro, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, notes that MacArthur “has a long history of Catholic bashing.” He reports that Catholics whose relatives left the Church for MacArthur’s denomination were taught that they would go to hell unless they left Rome.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601drag.asp

 

[sandusky]

Fidelis:

Sorry, but you are wrong. I have ears and eyes, and I know different.

You are a know-nothing with respect to MacArthur. All you have done is proffer hearsay that you cannot support.

Fidelis:

Sorry again; I’ve seen the ads, and talked to people who have attended them.

You are deceived, and have done nothing but proffer hearsay that you cannot support.

Fidelis:

That’s pretty funny!

And absolutely true!

Fidelis:

Before you insult people and falsely and unchristianly accuse people of being liars, make sure they they haven’t seen and heard the evidence with their own eyes and ears.

Your remarks are self-insulting.

Fidelis:

And if you continue to call me names, please do not address me at all. Thanks.

Typical response of one caught in a lie.

 

[sandusky]

Harpazo:

My dad (Protestant) received a horrible letter from him (sent out to thousands) with the title “The Secret Cult of Mary Worship” and inside there was a message about giving him money. The money would be used to save those “poor, lost Catholics.” He also mentioned how he wanted to further the rift of the Reformation. Sad…instead of preaching love, he’d rather preach animosity…

In Pax Christi
Andrew

I received the same letter, and your characterization of it is just that—a characterization.

There was nothing about sending money to be used to save “poor, lost Catholics,” those are your words.

Any money solicited by those letters are to support the radio ministry which stands on its own and is not supported by the Church.

Moreover, there was no mention of “furthering the rift of the Reformation,” again, those are your words; the reference to the reformation was restating what the reformation was about; I understand your not wanting to go into that again.

 

[jim1130]

A lie.

No ex-Catholic at GCC is deceived; they hear MacArthur’s preaching, are convicted of the truth by the H.S., leave their error behind and come into the light.

When preaching, or teaching on the RCC MacArthur lets the RCC speak for itself by using their documents; they are a sufficient indictment on their own.

Another lie. There are no seminars directed at evangelizing the Catholic church specifically, but all of the lost.

MacArthur has never asked for a raise in all of his time at GCC (38 years next spring), although the elders do give him raises to see how he handles the money (he gives it away); in fact, he probably gives away more money in a year than you make. He is an exceptionally Godly man.

Money has nothing to do with it (2 Cor 6:14).

I guess you are a follower of John MacArthur.

 

[Fidelis]

You are a know-nothing with respect to MacArthur…You are deceived, and have done nothing but proffer hearsay that you cannot support.

As I (and others) have said, we have experienced it personally; that’s all the proof that is needed. I’m afraid your idolation of this man is misplaced, and you are the one who has been decieved…

Your remarks are self-insulting.Typical response of one caught in a lie.

Name-calling is the last refuge of one who does not have a leg to stand on. As a Christian, I will reduce the temptation to stoop to your level.

You have my pity and my prayers. Farewell!

 

[sandusky]

Fidelis:

As I (and others) have said, we have experienced it personally; that’s all the proof that is needed. I’m afraid your idolation of this man is misplaced, and you are the one who has been decieved…

You are too much!

To a long-time member of GCC, and one who knows MacArthur personally, do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Fidelis:

Name-calling is the last refuge of one who does not have a leg to stand on.

What I have said about you concerning this subject is true, but you refuse to admit it.

Fidelis:

As a Christian, I will reduce the temptation to stoop to your level.

Stoop to my level?

You are the one proffering unsubstantiated hearsay concerning John MacArthur, someone you do not know; you have already stooped!

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by sandusky
No ex-Catholic at GCC is deceived; they hear MacArthur’s preaching, are convicted of the truth by the H.S., leave their error behind and come into the light.

Yes, we are told that “Satan transforms himself into an angel of light”.
The light of heresy.

 

[Iraneaus]

Yes, we are told that “Satan transforms himself into an angel of light”.
The light of heresy.

As MacArthur himself rightly revealed about false teachers,

. . . they are dangerous when they tell truth because often they cannot be distinguished from true teachers. The key to being a successful false teacher is to tell as much of the truth as possible. (MacArthur's Bible study guide, Joy And Godliness, p. 17).

And,

The subtlety of false teaching is that it uses the Word of God but misrepresents its teaching. Those who teach something explicitly and overtly anti-biblical, anti-Christ, and anti-God pose no real threat to the Christian church. But subtle teaching that appears to be biblical yet pulls unwary souls away from the faith is a great danger to the church. (MacArthur's Bible study guide, Avoiding Spiritual Counterfeiters, p. 17)

His teachings on “self worth” and the the Blood of Christ would be great examples of misleading teachings.

 

[lak611]

His teachings on "self worth" and the the Blood of Christ would be great examples of misleading teachings.

What are his teachings on “self worth” and the Blood of Christ?

 

[Iraneaus]

What are his teachings on “self worth” and the Blood of Christ?

MacArthur and the blood of Christ

MacArthur Minimizes The Blood

The April 1986 edition of Faith For The Family quotes him as saying in a 1976 article entitled, “Not His Bleeding But His Dying” “It was His death that was efficacious. . not His blood. . . Christ did not bleed to death. The shedding of blood had nothing to do with bleeding. . . it simply means death. . . Nothing in His human blood saves…It is not His blood that I love. . . it is Him. It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying.” It is incredible to me, that a Christian minister would make such statements.

He Does Not Like Rev. 1:5 In The KJV

In “Not His Bleeding But His Dying,” MacArthur had this to say: "I may add a note on Revelation 1:5, a passage which is confusing in the King James Version. The word ‘washed’ is not correct. The Greek work is ‘delivered.’ ‘’ With that statement, I would like to take issue. "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood’’ (Rev. 1:5). What could possibly be confusing about that? He says that ‘‘washed’’ is incorrect and that it should be “delivered.” Like most “great” scholars today, MacArthur suffers from the Westcott and Hort syndrome. “Washed” is in the Textus Receptus, and is so rendered by George Ricker Berry in his Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. In his invaluable footnotes, Berry reveals those responsible for trying to change the reading of this verse. The word was changed by Lachmann, 1842- 1850, Tischendorf, Eighth Edition, 1865- 1872, and Tregelles, 1857- 1872. These are three of the men that laid the groundwork for Westcott and Hort, so that they could make the alarming changes in their Revised Version. The American Standard Version, 1901, of course went along with the change, but they did put in a significant footnote. While rendering the word as “loosed,” their footnote says, “Many authorities, some ancient, read washed.”

I do not agree with the change as found in the ASV, when it reads “Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood.” Nor do I agree with the NIV as it reads, “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood.” However, whether it is rendered “washed,” “loosed,” “freed,” or “delivered,” it is still “by” or “in” His blood that this is done. While the ASV, the NASV, and the NIV definitely weaken the verse, neither one of them will really let MacArthur off the hook. Whether washed from our sins, or delivered from our sins, it is still only by the blood.

Why Pit His Blood Against His Death?

MacArthur states that, “It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus.” I have never heard of anyone teaching that Jesus only needed to bleed a little to save us, and not to die. Numerous passages of Scripture tell us that Christ died for our sins. This is found in I Cor. 15:3, as well as many other places. If anyone denied this, I would object very strenuously to their denial, but my question is, why does it have to be His “death” or His ''blood"? It is both His “death” and His “blood” that are important according to the Bible.

How can MacArthur truthfully make the following statement? "Again, however, we need to keep in mind that the blood was a symbol. If Christ’s own physical blood, in itself, does not cleanse from sin, how much less did the physical blood of animals. " (Emphasis ours.) Many passages of Scripture reveal that he is dead wrong in his approach.

 

[sandusky]

Iraneaus:

His teachings on “self worth” and the the Blood of Christ would be great examples of misleading teachings.

You have not posted the teachings on self worth.

When you figure that out, would you state your point in posting the comments you have posted, and would you comment and analyze, in your own words, what MacArthur is saying about the blood of Christ in the writings that you have offered, and what it is that makes you as indignant as the writer you quote, and fail to name, concerning this?

 

[FCEGM]

. . .Still, I do pray for him and others, like Hank Hanegraf (the “Bible Answer Man”) who, from what I understand, would be Rome-ward bound if there was not just so much to give up – financially, prestige-wise, and personally.

Since Mr. Hanegraf moved his “Bible Answer Man” to Charlotte, NC, I rather frequently drive by the new location. You’re reminding me how derelict I’ve been in forgetting to pray that he will move his operation to my parish just up the road.