Mac can recite scripture … but, he doesn’t ‘understand it’ as thoroughly as Staples. Staples would have no problems clearly refuting Mac in a debate.
Right, a guy that studies scripture 70+ hours a week, is the head of a theological seminary and maybe the foremost 20th century reformed commentarian is going to change drastically his view on a very clear reformed doctrine…Not likely.
Why, then, does Saint Peter say that baptism does indeed save us? The Church has taught for 2,000 years that there are three ways to be baptized: by water, by desire and by blood. In this case, the good thief had a baptism of desire (by expressing his desire to be with Christ, even though it was presumably too late for a water baptism; this is also the reason why we can believe infants who die before baptism can go to heaven, based on the parents desire to baptize them, but for some intervening cause that prevented it). Martyrs who were not baptized in water and the Spirit, but martyred for Christ, are baptized by blood (i.e., the Holy Innocents). So water baptism is a normative, but not an absolute necessity for salvation.
Would John admit that even through all the hours and years of his study of Scripture that every single one of his interpretations thereof could be wrong? If so, why would he want others to risk their very souls by them possibly adhering to false doctrines that could land them in hell for eternity?
***James 3:[1] ******Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. ***
Yikes!
So our sinful nature resides in our flesh and our soul is unaffected. When we die we shed our flesh and our soul is set free basically? If this is the case, why are not all who die a physical death in heaven? If our sinful nature only resides in our flesh and not our soul everyone would be freed of its effects upon death. Obvioulsy some souls are made perfect others are not, regardless of the flesh.
Actually that sounds a bit like Gnosticism doesn’t it?
myfavoritmartin;6284582 said:
Really? On his radio program?
Don’t forget the devil and his fallen angels who do not have physical bodies…
Yes. He doesn’t term it as “I no longer believe in OSAS” … nevertheless, he now is teaching/preaching this very idea.
MacArthur is a Calvinist and Calvinists never use the OSAS terminology. They use the ‘TULIP’, the ‘P’ of which is ‘perserverance of the saints’. OSAS is not the same as POTS, although they are pretty close. You could say OSAS is a kind of ‘kindergarten’ understanding of the Calvinist doctrine.
Wow, can’t get more Gnostic than that.
He is a serious student of the Bible, and a seeker of God’s truth. And, while the Evangelicals may not like him … he does admire their passion for Sola Scripture, and is on a mission to show them their error on many other matters [other than S.S.].
hmmm i am curious to how you viewed the regenerate vs. the unregenerate.